User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Why did you remove fact that she was in MOVIE....

Stefanie played Calamity Jane in Bonanza the Series, Season 5, Episode 7 Calamity Over the Comstock Released November 3rd(1963).[[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisconsingary (talkcontribs) 11:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)




Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sam Cooke (model): she's dating Chris Smalling. Don't remove fact. Are you jealous or something? check your facts before you edit something. Can't believe this actually needs to be explained. Tsk tsk.

Contents

hello i need help[edit]

please get back to me when u get this58.106.70.43 (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Brooklyn Lee[edit]

Can you not? I am working on a new project, and updated my page to reflect this. No spamming involved. K, thanks.

That's pretty much the paradigm of spamming. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

How do you figure? I uploaded current photographs to replace the former, outdated, and included information about a new project. All relevant. All Factual. On what planet is one prohibited from doing such to their own page?Vforvampist (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, then if it makes your willy tingle, I'll remove the information about my current work (which IS relevant). The photos, however, are the most current that exist anywhere on the internet, so you are undermining the up-to-date status of the page by continuing to undo it. Also, please get a life. Vforvampist (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Stop. You are intentionally removing up-to-date files/information. Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at BrooklynLee. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to BrooklynLee, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at BrooklynLee.

Melissa Ashley[edit]

hey dude, why are you removing my productive edits on her page. i discussed her activism in preventing overzealous porn prosecution in conservative districts. i documents it with bona fide sources - legitimate newspapers such as the Guardian, and US court documents, which are both public records and highly reliable and verifiable. This is a demonstration of her notability; she is well known as an activist in this regard. her notability had been in dispute, and this addressed that issue

so... why are you interfering with documenting that activism? i will revert your edits removing this unless you cna explain why this information should not be documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.194.99.125 (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


Andra Day[edit]

Hello. I am the editor for the page Andra Day (Singer). I just wanted to say that I truly appreciate your sound, intelligent response to Fiddle Faddle. I won't even state how or why I disagreed with both that editor's comments and TONE, because you hit all the nails on their heads. Thank you, and regardless if our page works out, I hope you stick around as an editor. You are doing right by us this time, and I can only imagine you do just as right by others. Bless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by An108 (talkcontribs) 22:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Not bad faith[edit]

Hi. You're not receiving bad faith or summary mistreatment by admins. Several of us have been extra patient in dealing with this problem because we don't want to block you. But if you keep fighting against community standards, that's what's going to happen, regrettably. There's no rush. Why don't you discuss this. If you can make a good case for your position, we might be able to accommodate you somehow, or there might be a compromise. Jehochman Talk 15:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to point out the obvious - but Hullaballoo, at the moment, due to the move-war that you've initiated, when you moved User talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz/Archive 2, you moved it to User talk:User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, which was tagged and deleted as an implausible typo. At the moment, you're entire talk page history has been deleted. Continuing to try and redirect your archive to your talk page is, well, futile at the moment. @Fram and Jehochman: can one of you restore the revisions to the archive? Dusti*Let's talk!* 15:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
The history is at User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Archive 2. Fram (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Derp.... I went off of your edit at User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Archive2 ;) /me goes back to sleep Dusti*Let's talk!* 16:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Block notice[edit]

Sadly, I have now blocked you for 24 hours for disruptive editing. You technically still can edit this page, and thus reinstate the redirect. This will only lead to the removal of your talk page access as well, so please don't.

You were given plenty of chances to discuss this, but only replied by reinstating your preferred but for others clearly unacceptable situation. This is disruptive editing. Your user talk page is not your property to do with like you please, it is a place for other editors to contact you. Making this deliberately much harder is not something that can be accepted. Fram (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we could back away from the cliff[edit]

HW, if I unblock you, and move your talk page back here temporarily as a gesture of respect, can I assume you'll discuss this at WP:AN, and will abide by whatever consensus forms there? That way you could have some control over how it is resolved. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Flo, you doing that action would be disputed. Please discuss it first. If you are right, I'm sure you are eloquent enough to generate a consensus for your proposal. Jehochman Talk 16:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
No, Fram said he was OK with another admin doing it at AN. And you handled this poorly, contributing to the dysfunction. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
No, Fram said if it seems likely that he'll stop redirecting his talk page of course - Not an agreement to restore the disputed talk page here, unblock him, and then ask him to discuss it at AN. Dusti*Let's talk!* 16:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with your proposed admin action. The dysfunction is that the editor is using his talk page in a way that prevents others from communicating with him. You are welcome to disagree with me, but you should not use sysop access in furtherance of a disagreement. Go to WP:AN and generate a consensus to unblock the editor. That will provide an opportunity perhaps to discover the best way forward. Your judgement is not better than everybody elses'. Jehochman Talk 16:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear God in Heaven, you people are morons. You enjoy this, don't you? You enjoy escalating shit, and pissing all over any attempt to deescalate. This conversation is between HW and me, and if he agrees then I'm going to do this, and if you want to whine about it somewhere, that will be fine. Shame on you. And yes, in this case, my judgement is better than yours, because I'm trying to help, and you're trying to enforce. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Woah! First of all, you're assuming bad faith, and you're being condescending. I tried getting Hull to open up and talk about why he was opposed, and he kept edit warring to restore his talk page. He chose his actions, not me, not Jehochman. I understand that you're trying to deescalate, but you can't unliaterally go against consensus that's developed at AN. All Jehochman is asking for you to do is see if the there's a consensus to revert, unblock, and then try and discuss with HW. FWIW, I'm deeply offended that you're insinuating that I think this is a great thing to happen. The last thing anyone wanted here was for HW to be blocked. No wonder this community is going to shit with all this bad faith. Dusti*Let's talk!* 16:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I've unwatched this page. Jehochman Talk 16:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Guys, yes the talk page was getting to be a problem. But talking it out over days rather than barging in and just changing it would have been a much better call. It isn't like it's some new emergency--it's been years. Let Floq and HW see if they can't find a reasonable way forward. Hobit (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
    • While I appreciate your comments and Floquenbeam's, no reasonable response from me is going to matter. This was obviously an out-of-process put-up job designed to discredit and remove a "troublesome" editor whose adherence to and enforcement of policies makes a certain claque of administrators/editors uncomfortable.

Note that

  1. The AN discussion was initiated by an editor who I had little or no prior interaction with, and who had made no attempt at substantive discussion of the issues with me. That normally precludes resorting to the drama boards.
  2. The editor who initiated the AN discussion then canvassed eight users, just about all of whom have engaged in disputes with me over various issues, but not editors who had expressed similar concerns but who were usually on the same "side" as I was in BLP disputes. It is remarkable, to say the least, that Technical 13 somehow managed to select the two admins whose closes I recently supported overturning in currently-active discussions at DRV [2] [3] and one editor whose current DRV proposals I've opposed [4]. Even more remarkably, the editor managed to search my supposedly difficult-to-handle talk page, find all of these users to canvass, and post to WP:AN in about 15 minutes. It is certainly reasonable to suspect this enterprise was set up in advance, and I see no reason to doubt it.
  3. There have been roughly 200 posts to the talk page in the last 90 days or so. That hardly is consistent with the claim that I "effectively disable[d] his [my] talk page by letting it get so large it will not load reliably".
  4. Despite my running an old OS (Windows XP) and using a notoriously lousy but, in my area, unavoidable ISP, I don't have any trouble accessing the talk page, even if I'm not logged in. The only time I had trouble was when the stinking Visual Editor was active. I suspect that many of the editors who actually have problems have editing "enhancements", scripts, gadgets, addons, browser extensions whatever, that subtly degrade their performance. When some editors report no serious problems and others report dysfunction, it is more likely that the problem's root cause is not the source page. I often have problems getting userspace pages including media files to load readily, and I'm not the only one, but I don't demand that everybody else restrict their pages to fit my idiosyncracies.
  5. I'm often in disputes here with publicists, promoters, and other folks who try to use Wikipedia as an internet marketing tool. I note that the summary disputed action here was taken buy a guy in the internet marketing business. That really smells. There's no way around it.
  6. I've also often been used as a poster child for admin abuse by commenters at Wikipedia Review and Wikipediocracy, after a particularly atrocious admin blocked me for a comment made by another editor, refused to block the editor who made the comment, and refused to unblock after Checkuser confirmed no association with the other editor. That incident has led to a disproportionate number of conflicts with admins and editors who are hostile toward those sites, as well as a lack of deference on my part to administrative "authority". And some of what's happening here looks to be payback. And I'm sick and tired of Wolfowitz-only rules here, like being told I can't use the phrase "convicted criminal" to describe an actual convicted criminal, while allowing the article subject's girlfriend to use the same phrase to describe someone who was not convicted (or even charged with) any crime. You can't make stuff like that up.
  7. I clearly wasn't given anything like a reasonable opportunity to respond. I was notified about the AN discussion at about 1AM my time last night, saw nothing calling for an immediate response, and decided to wait until morning to see how things were sorting out. At the time Jehochman acted, there clearly was no consensus for his action (which he technically botched to begin with). As the length of this response indicates, acting without giving me a chance to respond was utterly uncalled for.
  • If you want to post any or all of this to WP:AN, @Hobit:, feel free. But this was a planned lynching, and I don't expect fair treatment in response; that's why I haven't posted an unblock request. It won't be the first time. Could be the last, though. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
    Thank you for taking the time to respond Hullaballoo. Would you mind telling us why you're opposed to the requests to archive your page, and what, if anything, you would rather happen? I'll post this to the AN thread, if that's okay. Dusti*Let's talk!* 21:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Read items 3 and 4, which directly address the threshold question. It's obvious from the responses that already show up at AN, though, that I wouldn't have received a fair hearing even had I responded instantly. And why didn't you post it in the appropriate, initial section? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
      • There was no smooth place to post your reply, so I made it it's own section. It shows others that you have replied and gives a spotlight to what you're saying, which is important for the overall discussion. Dusti*Let's talk!* 21:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd recommend that you don't revert the archiving of your talkpage, when your 24hr-block expires. Trust me, a combative nature isn't going to help. It's a lesson that I've learned these last 2+ yrs. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • HW, perhaps we are BLP enemies (are we?), but here's some serious advice: they archived your talk page because it was absurdly long. If this is a vendetta against you, it is a very dumb one, and one you should ignore. If you're going to get intentionally blocked by reverting edits, let's make it over something really worthwhile to you!--Milowenthasspoken 22:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

HW, I don't think you and I have ever had a conflict, and FWIW I agree with everyone else that you should archive your talk page as a sign of respect for people trying to leave you messages (It took me quite a while to load your archived talk page this morning). I just don't agree with the way it was handled. I recognize some sensible people in that AN thread, so it's not all enemies.

You don't have to ask, I'll unblock you now as (at least) a token of de-escalation. Especially since it isn't preventing you from doing what you were blocked for, and because it's easier for you to post to AN than to have someone transfer your comments.

So where do you want to go from here? What reasonable outcome do you want to see? I'm pretty sure the page is going to end up getting archived, reading the writing on the wall, but it makes no sense for this to happen without your input on how. If it makes you more willing to discuss it, I'll move it back here until a final decision is reached, but that's admittedly just symbolic; barring an unforeseen development I can't imagine it staying that way forever. Do you want to archive it a different way? Or argue for not archiving it at AN? Or do you want to cut your losses and move on? Also, I note that while your comments above explain why you don't think it should have to be archived, it doesn't explain why you actually object to it being archived. Is it just a matter of not wanting busybodies telling you what to do, or is there more to it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict × 2)Some responses here as the editor who raised the issue in the first place. I'm guessing you feel like you are being "strong-armed" with "mob tactics", and since I'm aware of the fact that you've had multiple other conflicts (you're not alone in that), I'm not going to assume you are unjustified in thinking so.
As you mention in your first bullet point, The AN discussion was initiated by an editor who I had little or no prior interaction with, which means to me that you acknowledge the fact that I'm not here "just another member of the mob". I'll point out that I'm not an administrator (don't honestly want to be one at this point) and I'm usually on the other end of the stick (that everyone keeps telling me to drop). You seem to be complaining that I did not first try to discuss it with you before heading over to AN, and the reason I did not initiate further discussion with you on the topic before heading over to AN was that I was technically incapable of directly editing your user page; the only reason I managed to add the AN notice was because I did it through the API via Twinkle.
In your second bullet, you accuse me of CANVASSING eight other users, and based on your just about all of whom have engaged in disputes with me over various issues statement, you seem to think I did it to stack the deck against you only notifying people who you've had disputes with in the past. I'll say that I notified exactly nine people of the discussion at AN, yourself and the eight people who I linked to their requests on your user talk page for archival over the last nearly five years now. I notified them, because an action that they had performed involved them in the discussion when I linked those revisions. There was no other reason or motive behind it and I have no idea who you have or haven't had disputes with in the past, nor do I much care.
In the third bullet, you mention how 200 posts have been made to your talk page in the last 90 days. I'm not sure what your point in making that comment was suppose to be considering your page was too large 50 months ago and way way too large as much as a year ago. This is something that should have been done long ago and consistently.
You mention that your system and connection are lousy in your fourth point, and that you have no troubles loading your page. You then try to shift the blame to gadgets, userscripts, beta features claiming that it's not your fault if people can't communicate with you because they choose to use those features. I'll tell you that on my ShoeMaker test account, using nothing but wiki default settings and the monobook skin (I think that's what it is called), and a decent computer with a 15Mb cable connection, I still couldn't access your talk page and make a successful save (I keep getting the Wikimedia Error window). So, blaming the software just isn't going to fly for me.
As for the remainder of your bullet points, those seem to me to be out of context of what my goal was in starting the AN discussion in the first place. You seem to have taken a lot of stuff personally (and I'm not sure I blame you, I've felt very similar at times), and you've let that effect your judgement. For me it is simply a technical issue,l nothing more, nothing less. If you and Floquenbeam can reach an effective agreement for an archiving scheme that is reasonable for everyone and Floq wishes to end the block early based on that, then I entirely support that. I hope that you can resolve this quickly, and get back to happily editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 22:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Not hardly convincing. You give no explanation of why you decided to personalize this; you cited only one complaint in the last two years beside your own, which to a reasonable person would signal that you ought to consider it's not a major problem, and might well be at your end, you don't make any attempt to explain the remarkable correlation between the open DRVs and the selective list of editors to WP:CANVASS, you had no good reason to open an out-of-place discussion at AN rather than at the Village Pump (policy decisions and "technical decisions" aren't reserved for admins), leaving only the inference that your real interest was provoking action against me. And, frankly, if you don't believe the many recent posts to my talk page are signals that the problems you claim to be concerned with don't seem to affect most users, and in turn that the problems may well be at your end, than your technical competence is likely lower than you believe it is. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
It's just an unnecessary hassle to have to scroll down through a long talk page, the standard convention is to archive it, and a bunch of folks asked you to. So why the stubborn antisocial behavior? NE Ent 01:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Why the antisocial behavior? I'm practicing to be an admin! (rimshot) I would find it a bigger hassle to have to rummage through the large set of archives that would result from the standard archiving practices. I'm sick and tired of the Wolfowitz-only rules that get applied to me. No other editor was subjected to being blocked for actions taken by a different editor, even though that editor was not blocked or even warned. The editor who did this [5] wasn't sanctioned or warned in any way as long as I was seen as their main target. On and on, over and over. I don't believe that this dispute was initiated in good faith; the initiator hasn't given any remotely credible explanation of how they came to be involved; the improper CANVASSing was quite apparent, the discussion clearly never approached consensus, and yet summary action was taken for no reason beyond "Oh, fuck Wolfowitz, he's unmutual". As the late Mr Vonnegut would say, "The fix is in". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 05:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
It's hardly a Wolfowitz only rule; it's right in WP:TALKCOND "It is recommended to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." One of the commenters on AN made a similar request to another editor three days ago [6]. You were first asked over four years ago [7]. Part of being a member of a community is following conventions simply because they are conventions. NE Ent 12:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
You may be naive enough to believe that, but it's utter bullshit. The AN complaint that started was obviously pretextual, brought in violation of the prescribed procedures at AN, not to mention those "standard conventions" you want to rely on. And it was improperly WP:CANVASSED, obviously and clumsily. But that's OK, because it's Wolfowitz. This wasn't about the talk page, even if you believe it was. "Part of being a member of a community is following conventions simply because they are conventions"? Nonsense. Part of being a member of a community is recognizing and accepting that communities are diverse, that different styles and opinions are legitimate, and that there's nothing wrong with being "unconventional". I got a few complaints a year about the talk page, mostly from editors pushing their side in active disputes -- and the fact that I have about as active a talk page as non-admins have puts the lie to the claim that the page significantly impeded communication. It's been open season on Wolfowitz here this year: It's OK for a paid publicist to make phony accusations of racism without consequences [8]; a venomous troll bent on defaming an article subject was allowed to continue [9] so long as the only editor she harassed was Wolfowitz [10] [11][12]. If you're going to join a lynching party, don't expect the guest of honor to appreciate your lovely choice of rope. No More Mr Nice Wolfowitz (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The only one personalizing this has been you. I didn't cite only one complaint other than my own, I listed eight of them, including my own ([1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]), which to a reasonable person would signal that you ought to consider it is a major problem. There was a different editor for each one of those various requests for you to archive your talk page (using many various methods from starting a discussion on your talk page, to setting up a bot for you, to marking the page with the {{Archiveme}} template), those are the editors I pinged. Your repeated refusal to take a hint over the last five years indicated to me that there needed to be a discussion on a noticeboard that dealt with such issues. If I had gone to AN/I, then I would certainly agree that it would have been out of place; however, I went to AN which seemed like an appropriate place and the resulting discussion and consensus seems to confirm. As for your last comment there, you are certainly more than welcome to your opinion. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 02:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • You're working hard to demonstrate your lack of good faith. First of all, you've blatantly misquoted me. I said one complaint in the last two years besides your own. An average of one complaint a year, roughly, would not indicate a major problem, especially when so many of them came from editors on the opposite sides of disputes. There were a few that you didn't cite, but you carefully avoid explaining the fact that you went out of your to spot and improperly WP:CANVASS editors you expected to be hostile to me. Hell, your technically deficient signature may well do more to degrade performance across the project. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Dear God, this talk page is going to be as long as it was if we keep on with these long responses.--Milowenthasspoken 22:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Can we all please get on with the task in hand, not bickering over a page that, frankly, is for constructive discussion? The page has been archived, and the block removed, so there doesn't appear to be anything else constructive to happen here. Let's get back to improving the encyclopedia, which will be good however you look at it. --Mdann52talk to me! 18:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
"We've screwed you over, now get back to doing what we tell you" is not a communication that furthers improvement of the encyclopedia. This obviously isn't about the talk page, or about policy or guideline, but about slapping down an editor who is seen as sufficiently deferential to a claque of editors/admins. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I think you meant insufficiently. But fixing it might mean deferring to the claque... will the problems never end? Bazj (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
HW, you're only making things worst for yourself, by being combative. Don't make the mistakes that I've made in 2011, 2012 & 2013. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're right about the canvassing; total WP:VOTESTACKING. Which means, if we discount the canvassed editors on AN, there really wasn't consensus for anything. (My personal opinion remains unchanged, but obviously that doesn't mean very much.) So the question is -- what do you want to do about it? I closed the AN thread as much to stop the HW bashing as anything else, and it's unclear to me whether re-opening would make things better or worse. Let me know if you want me to re-open the discussion. NE Ent 20:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

  • For the record I largely agree with NE Ent here. I feel this whole thing moved way (way) too fast and amounted to bullying. But the page was a (small) problem and probably needed to be addressed (from my home computer I'd tried to edit the old page and it took about 30 seconds to load but I've an old/crappy computer and a slow connection). I'd urge you to let it go as there really isn't anything more to be done. I hate letting people bully me (to the point of becoming irrational) so I get that might not be so easy to do. Hobit (talk) 01:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
It's a website ... it is what it is. You're not blocked. Go do what you want to do. — Ched :  ?  02:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

About all that bother[edit]

Sorry about the recent railroading you got over at AN/I. Your talk page was too long but what was imposed on you was way outside of policy and precedent. They're getting awfully aggressive over at the AN shop these days. GraniteSand (talk) 07:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely outrageous; but, heh. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

There is a report, initiated by me, at WP:AN3#User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reported by User:Mdann52 reguarding some of your recent edits. I'm going to see if there is any edit warring by the other side as well, and if so, I'll move this to a different venue, or report them too as appropriate. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

CSD tag removal[edit]

Please stop. Rodelyn Onggo is most certainly unremarkable. A quick Google search shows no reliable sources. Brollos also may not be notable, but I haven't translated the articles I found. Please do not remove these tags- that is an administrator's job.Qxukhgiels (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It is evident you have no proper understanding of speedy deletion policy. Any editor, other than the page creator, may remove a speedy tag. You have been blitz-tagging new articles, mostly from new editors, without allowing their creators to finish writing them. Your tags are too often substantively wrong as well -- tagging Saleh al-Ogaili with A7 was just plain atrocious since the article undeniably asserted not just significance but notability, and it was plain as day that the creator was still working on it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Pamela Gordon[edit]

What I was doing was adding accurate information found on her article on Playboy One.

No, what you were doing was adding unsourced breast/cup sizes to women's bios, mostly BLPs/ The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
The information was taken directly from each woman's article on Playboy Online, I was simply adding information about the person.

Just a comment from a passerby[edit]

First of all I am not a big editor like many of you all, most of my edits have been spelling and punctuation errors. Second I don't know all the rules of Wikipedia, but I try my best to not be a bother to others, and I never believe I am the so called "final authority" on any subject. I am here to help and am interested in seeing articles provide the 'proper' and 'correct' information for the folks who read them (ignorance is due mainly to lack of information). This all being said...I find it very interesting that in recent days all the editors who have "corrected" me on any small faults or errors of mine, have themselves been guilty of making grave errors and been blocked or otherwise brought into check by the Administrators. You sir, from reading your Talk page, seem to have made several bad mistakes and made a number of people upset.

Now, the article on Karen Price I was editing and expanding, and was NOT finished yet working on. And yet you in your wisdom came and deleted my revisions and reverted it back to its original form. The information I gathered I TOOK directly off the main and proper source for any bio information on said person, her former employer Playboy Magazine. The bio information I was correcting on several Playmates, IF you would check, was taken off a website NOT affiliated with Playboy and several things were incorrect (cup size, weight, etc.).

Now I DO NOT appreciate people who "think" they know better swooping down and changing things when my intention is simply to correct information. I have noticed in Wikipedia several editors who seem to prowl the website just waiting for somebody to make a mistake, then they pounce. What should be done is the editor explains the mistake and gives the person the chance to make corrections THEMSELVES.

But sir, to you and ALL other editors who wish to correct any mistakes I make, PLEASE have the decency to tell me and give me the opportunity to make my own corrections.

GO THE HELL AWAY. You are obviously trolling me. You have been editing here since 2005; you have nearly 7 thousand edits, and you plainly are on notice of such central policies as WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:NFCC. You're nevertheless complaining because I've been removing unreferenced, poorly referenced, incorrectly referenced, and unsourced claims you've been inserting into articles without substantive discussion. And despite your puling about using "the main and proper source" about Karen Price, this three-stage edit,[13], adding the vital encyclopedic text "She is best known for being one of the largest breasted Playboy Playmates of the 1980s", is actually referenced to a message board archive [14] -- and no post on that page remotely supports the claim you make, despite the contributions of such noted authorities on popular culture as "Milkmaniac", "DruulEmpire", "cboobs", "r2d2", and the renowned academic authority "Loverofbigtits". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets![edit]

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015.
Happy editing,
LADY LOTUSTALK 18:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for removing my CSD tag on the 5sos page and Editions Musica Ferrum. I now realize I shouldn't have tagged either of them. Everymorning talk 21:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

I was mostly wary of the change because it was from an anon IP and made no attempt to explain its removal. Cheers, GentlemanGhost (converse) 00:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Bocassa, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion and appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Information icon Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Bocassa. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I know what you're doing is in good faith, but if you have concerns with deletion of an article, contest with the deletion according to the tag. Don't remove it. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:CIR. Anyone but the page creator can remove a speedy tag, and you know I'm not the page creator, because you've put a notice on their talk pag.e three times. Your insistence on reinstating a declined speedy approaches the abusive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:CIR is not policy, and if you want me to stop placing the tag, What criteria gives you the right to remove the tag? Then I will stop — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I need to apologize to you has you were on the right. I should have given more time for the editor to expand the article. I try to delete articles ASAP with no sources and little to no content. I'v been through many heated discussions lately through my mistakes or just too aggressive towards other editors over little simple edits. This time it's an obvious mistake I made, and I should have consulted with you and the creator of the article. My apologies and have a Merry Christmas! Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Did I really bite?[edit]

Hello. Regarding your comment at the history of Coronary artery disease treatment in ayurveda, I'm not sure I bit anyone (let alone so hard as to justify mentioning God). Given that it was the first time I've used the speedy deletion option (not being the most experienced of users myself), can you please explain what my mistake has been? I admit it did not cross my mind that the user's intention was to create an article instead of a template. Was I supposed to? (Please check my notice on that user's talk page first.) Thanks! NikosGouliaros (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, you should have thought of that; and, even if your assumption was correct, the appropriate action would have been to transfer the faux-template to draftspace, because stashing text an editor is working on is hardly something we discourage here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays![edit]

Seasonal Greets![edit]

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Non-free images at Eleanor Hibbert[edit]

FYI: Talk:Eleanor Hibbert#Non-free images. Huon (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Brian Jerome (footballer)[edit]

Hi there. I'm considering proposing speedy deletion of Brian Jerome (footballer) again; last time I did this, you removed the template with the comment "article includes a credible claim of significance, which is a lower standard than notability". I'm not entirely familiar with the policies for speedy deletion, but I dispute that this player (if he even exists) is significant: he has never played a match for a professional team and there's no mention of him on the Oxford United official website, and no hits on Google except relating to this article. As such he surely fails WP:NFOOTBALL. All substantive edits to the article are by the same user, Derrypardons, who has not edited any other article and did not respond to a note on his talk page about this. The first version of the article had a Soccerbase reference that referred to a completely different player (Junior Brown). I'm not convinced this Brian Jerome even exists, and even if he does he's surely not significant (whatever that means). No other youth player at Oxford has an article, unless they've played for the first team in a competitive match. Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

So BLP-PROD the article; it doesn't sound like an obvious enough hoax to speedy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks – it seems someone else has already done it, albeit on slightly different grounds. Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi[edit]

Hey HW, when you made this edit and left the Edit summary "inaccurate", we're you saying that the content added is or is not accurate? When I saw it, but did not see a new source added and without an edit summary, I rejected it as a Special:PendingChanges list item for review. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I said, plain as day, you were inaccurate. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm... OK, so you are claiming that the content is supported by a source? I guess I'll go check that. I guess it also goes without saying that you don't consider that statement "spam" or "trivia" or "fan cruft" then. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I suggest you restrict your inferences to what I say rather than comments about what I didn't say, although why you would suggest that statements in articles about a Daesh terrorist are "fan cruft" is weirdly disturbing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, if you stated what you meant in a clearer manner, we wouldn't be having this discussion. As for what does or does not disturb you, I know you have some biases, but I'm trying harder to not judge so harshly of late. In the future, I'll note that you draw a distinction between porn stars and terrorists when it comes to their BLP articles and what you consider acceptable content. It just seems strange that you think porn stars are less worthy of "humanizing". You also used to have more consistency, but its good to see that you're fallible after all... :) Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 07:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
You two certainly make a great couple. Can I make an observation or two? I'll try to be fair. This source has the Messi thing, so it's not unsourced. I'm not sure why you didn't see that Scalhotrod, unless it is because, and this is certainly possible, there is SO much text with that one reference all the way at the end. If that's the case, that's fine--it's over now. Hullabaloo, I do agree that "inaccurate" is really not helpful; I suppose you meant it to mean "yes it is in the source, duh". Please do us all a favor next time and be overexplicit, OK?

Both of you are valued contributors. You've been here some time. You have experience. We need you around. So please keep it together and make that extra step. Please. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

You may seem him as a valued contributor; I view him as a guy who trolls and harasses editors he's in content disputes with. I've been one of Chrris's favorite targets since I raised issues involving his COI, promotional, and copyvio editing nearly two years ago. I can't see a guy who's egged on trolls like "Carriearchdale" and Benjiboi socks in efforts to harassment, who's endorsed "appalling" bad faith accusations of racism in an AFD discussion, and who has made groundless personal attacks like this in edit summaries [15], and who's just come off a lengthy topic ban for similar misbehavior as someone who should be valued. This [16] is a typical example of attempting to dialog with Chris when he's in trolling mode, as he usually is with me, and I'm not going to waste time cater to his unreasonable and disruptive preferences. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, how about this: you write better and more accurate edit summaries to appease the poor schmucks who sometimes attempt to make peace between editors in order to let this joint run more smoothly? Drmies (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Given that Scalhotrod has just gone out of his way to insult me as "inane" and "biased" here [17], where he also claims that my reference to the AFD for the CAVR Award was so vague he couldn't find Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAVR Award, I don't think the supposed defects in my edit summary had anything to do with his response. A week or so ago, he attacked my removal of unsourced claims that named living people were involved with human-animal porn as BLP zealotry, which is hardly a claim a reasonable, good faith editor would make. If you want to keep the peace, cracking down on editors who go out of their way to break it would be a better starting point than let the wookkiee win has been. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
At the risk of belaboring the point, I wasn't talking about him, I was talking about me. Your edit summary was lousy, and that's all there is to it; no amount of stewing over your opponent's shortcomings is going to change that, and all I'm asking, sweet Jesus!, is that you be more clear next time. That's all, and now I am going to sign off and stay away. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the Commando_Jeep page[edit]

A piece of commercial fluff about slapping a few boxes on a ruralized soccer-mom transporter. What, exactly, is there to keep here, and why would it be notable even if it were true? And why, even if it were notable, would it be worth devoting so many words to it? I say it's spinach, and I say to hell with it.Anmccaff (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

And none of that justifies bypassing the standard deletion process, especially since you clearly acknowledge that the primary issue is notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
No, I'd say a bigger issue is that it is so factually inaccurate and fluff-ridden that, if cleaned up, it would not even make a decent stub. Go through and mentally blue-pencil the lies and the sales puffery ("...but I repeat myself.") Then add that it is a one-off editor who has linked it to every possible connection he can imagine. If that ain't deletable, what is?Anmccaff (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Donetsk[edit]

I'm aware of the disruptive editing from the other party. DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 19 January[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Personal attack[edit]

Please stop personal attack [18][19] and respect Wikipedia:Assume good faith. You do not understand something in my action? You can ask.

  • why I created a notification of SPI? Because user Раціональне анархіст aka Pax and Redban and its sockpuppets has very similar behavior, on several levels. Not just me this noticed. SPI came out well, because the sockpuppet of Redban caught.
  • why drew attention to the topic ban? because (still) I think that topic ban has been broken, topic ban is "about or related to pornography", this page AfD is relate to pornography because involves the removal of pornographic actor. For me is simple: "about or related to pornography" and AfD about pornographic actor, so.

Subtropical-man talk
(en-2)
19:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

He hasn't made any personal attacks or assumed bad faith where none was in evidence. You, on the other hand, have. Pax 02:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Shane Diesel deletion review[edit]

An article whose AfD you recently participated in has been restored pending deletion review. Pax 20:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you![edit]

Erdbeerteller01.jpg Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, thanks for your sensible keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last Disaster. I have instigated a speedy keep and incorporated the reviews in The Last Disaster article.
Coolabahapple (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

rabbitsreviews.com[edit]

I see you removed a number of links to rabbitsreviews.com, and it looks like most have been restored and more added since. I started a discussion with Hanswar32, and Scalhotrod jumped in right away. Is there past discussion on this or similar problems? --Ronz (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

And he's back. Let's get this settled. These long-term edit-wars in BLPs shouldn't be happening. --Ronz (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Wizkid (musician)[edit]

I reverted your edit to the Wizkid (musician) article because it didn't make sense. You can't say "no current source" when the section is well sourced. If you have a problem with the section, take it to the noticeboards. You can't removed sections on Wikipedia without consensus. Versace1608 (Talk) 22:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Cytherea[edit]

Since edit summaries seem to be going out of vogue, could you explain why you removed the rape info from the Cytherea article? Dismas|(talk) 17:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Because the content had already been disputed by another user, apparently under BLP, then restored without discussion by an IP-SPA; because the sourcing really doesn't satisfy BLP requirements; and because the curious selection of references appeared designed to ridicule/embarrass a third party with only a tenuous connection to the article subject. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Dismas|(talk) 19:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Concern about revert edit summary[edit]

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz! I'm helping User:Swartzcr learn more about how to edit Wikipedia as part of an Art and Feminism edit-a-thon today, and I saw that you reverted several of their edits with the summary "dubious sourcing and lousy writing". That's an unfortunately insulting and potentially discouraging edit summary, especially for good-faith edits by a person who is relatively inexperienced (as you can check from their contributions history); please be more neutral and polite when describing problems with another person's work. It would also be helpful for the quality of this article to point out the problems more specifically - which sentences in those edits do you think need work? Which references need to be improved? Thank you. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

on Valerie Solanas[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at [[:You reverted my edits on January 19 and then within 12 days, 1 hour and 40 minutes, and 14 hours and 29 minutes. Although no 3 of your reverts were within a 24-hour period, that seems to have been only because I'm not editing Wikipedia long enough in a single day. The article's talk page or topic, I think, addresses every issue you have raised or touched on and the talk page shows the consensus already reached. Please respond there for each point on which you disagree and wish to reopen consensus. Simply repeating charges that have already been refuted is not helpful. The content being deleted from the article is not only due weight, it is notable; and, in either case, is thus reportable in Wikipedia. Editing that preserves the essential content is welcome but I don't know what that editing would be, so please propose it and/or edit accordingly. At least, edit selectively; you've never explained why you think the gun having been purchased (which is sourced) should be described in the lead as only having been acquired (a weasel word) and regarding your most recent edit you did not explain your opposition to the recent minor correction of spacing nor acknowledge that I am not an SPA or have a COI even though I think we resolved that issue long ago and I'm the one who wrote most of the content in question. Please participate in discussion. Thank you very kindly.]] shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Nina Mercedez[edit]

I have no idea how this article wound up on my watchlist, but could you explain what or who 'the bucket' is? --Onorem (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Interaction ban request. Thank you. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Booknewsun.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Booknewsun.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

TWL HighBeam check-in[edit]

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

  • Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
  • Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers.com check-in[edit]

Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:

  • Please make sure that you can still log in to your Newspapers.com account. If you are having trouble let me know.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. Also, keep in mind that part of Newspapers.com is open access via the clipping function. Clippings allow you to identify particular articles, extract them from the original full sheet newspaper, and share them through unique URLs. Wikipedia users who click on a clipping link in your citation list will be able to access that particular article, and the full page of the paper if they come from the clipping, without needing to subscribe to Newspapers.com. For more information about how to use clippings, see http://www.newspapers.com/basics/#h-clips .
  • Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you,

Wikipedia Library Newspapers.com account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Here we go again.... Thank you. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in[edit]

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

  • Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
  • When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
  • Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks!
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Mentioned you at AN/EW[edit]

At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Hanswar32_reported_by_User:Ronz_.28Result:_.29. It looks like he may be changing his behavior, but the reverting needs to stop. --Ronz (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it a very bad idea to edit-war when your name has been brought up in an open ANEW discussion. --Ronz (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Sent you an email. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

For some reason you keep deleting my personal life at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Smith_(musician) Please explain the problem here. These are all common knowledge and verifiable facts.

[redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:2201:1E00:DC5B:10DD:7EC7:4E24 (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

What part of "wholly unsourced" is in any way unclear? Read WP:BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in[edit]

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

  • Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
  • When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
  • Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of National Names 2000 10:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Mention of non-notable awards in pornography articles[edit]

There is a discussion on how to address non-notable awards in pornography articles: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pornography#Mention_of_non-notable_awards_in_articles. We'd appreciate help creating consensus on when and how such awards are mentioned in pornography biographies and related articles.

Since you've been working on this for such a long time, your perspective will be especially helpful with defining our inclusion criteria. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers.com[edit]

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz,

Your application for a Newspapers.com account through the Wikipedia Library was approved last August, but we have no record of your having completed the process to claim your account. If you still want access, please let me know. If I don't hear from you, I'll assume you're not interested and the account will be given to another applicant. All the best, HazelAB (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Since you haven't claimed your account, I'm removing your name from the list of Wikipedia Library Newspapers.com account holders. You are welcome to reapply if you want access in the future. All the best, HazelAB (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Difference between webcam modeling and pornographic films[edit]

Why did you remove mentions of pre-porn webcam modeling from Lily Carter and Avy Scott? Webcam modeling and performing in pornographic films are not the same thing like you insinuated in these edit summaries. There are significant differences between the two. Webcam modeling shows are live and involve an actual interaction between the performer and the viewer, unlike a pornographic film. Also, webcam modeling shows do not have entries on IAFD or IMDB like actual pornographic films do. Audience size is another big difference. A webcam modeling show is viewed by a very small group of people and in some cases, only one person. A pornographic film has a much wider audience. They are simply not the same job. A porn star's career starts when they shoot their first pornographic film, not when they first appeared on a webcam, stripped, modeled nude, etc. "Before entering the pornographic industry, Carter was a webcam model" is an accurate and factual statement. Webcam modeling did not mark the beginning of her porn career, she did webcam modeling BEFORE porn. Please don't remove mentions of pre-porn webcam modeling from articles again. If your personal opinion is that there is no difference between the two, that's fine, just don't let it influence how you edit articles. You know, many people out there believe that there is no difference between a porn star and a prostitute, but WP doesn't let them go around replacing "pornographic actress" with "prostitute" in porn biographies. Rebecca1990 (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Shut up and go away, paid editor. What you post has virtually no relationship to the edits you are absurdly objecting to. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Jamie Dornan's image[edit]

There has been a conflict over the use of the infobox image in the Jamie Dornan page, I'm hoping that a vote to choose a preferred image would settle the dispute. I am therefore writing to those who have edited Jamie Dornan page to voice their opinion in the Jamie Dornan Talk page so we can reach a consensus. I would welcome your opinion. Hzh (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yo Sé Que Mentía DRV[edit]

Hi. I'm not sure I understand your objection to my close. I restored the article (with the full history) to draft space. Anybody can now work on it there and (almost) anybody can move it back to main article space. That seems like it's very close to what you're asking for, and bypasses a week's worth of debate. Is this a bad thing? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The article wasn't eligible for A7 to begin with -- TV shows aren't eligible for A7. The article should have been restored on the initial request. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 04:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I still don't understand why you're making such a fuss about this. You could have just fixed up the draft and restored it to main article space yourself. But, whatever, I've backed out my DRV close. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Actress bios[edit]

I noticed you removed some information from a string of articles today with the edit summary "inaccurately ascribed to CNBC, opinion of NN blogger/stringer not employed by CNBC". As far as I can tell Chris Morris is employed by CNBC [20][21], albeit in a freelance capacity. Am I missing something? VernoWhitney (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Mprris is not an employee of CNBC, but an independent writer. He is not listed on the relevant CNBC staff pages, and identifies himself as freelance/independent on his own home page. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gracie Glam, which sums it up and, so far as I know, has stood undisputed. His relationship with CNBC could be analogized to that of a syndicated columnist, whose opinions would not be attributed to a newspaper than published them. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for that pointer. I'll go read that AfD now. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Move protection[edit]

The protection is there to halt a move war, not to promote the protected edition. Except where there is an obvious violation of policy, there is no obligation for the protecting admin to revert a page to its state before an edit war. The protection will automatically expire on 7 June, after which editors (or a closing admin upon request) are free to enact the outcome of the discussion. Deryck C. 19:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

The above notice isn't mine but I'm letting you know you are at 3 reverts on Casey Calvert too. I am disturbed by the original research you are carrying out with regards to degrees at University of Florida simply because the exact title of the major isn't used or given. If the OFFICIAL school paper informally refers to her degree concentration, this should not be a reason to disqualify as unreliable. This a ridiculous tact for you to take. Further if she says she named herself after a specific professor with that specific last name, she most probably did and just because you feel it's scandalous to his reputation is not a reason to outright remove the mention. You could have just removed his name! Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Aberwyvern castle[edit]

Aberwyvern castle has been prodded. The article has no footnotes but it contains significant content about this fictional castle in David Macaulay's award-winning book Castle, so I was going to suggest merging this into the book article, but then I saw that last year you had reverted such a redirect.[22] So before I went further I wanted to ask you the reasons for your objection and to see if you had another suggestion. Thanks. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Native American mascot controversy[edit]

Your critique of Native American mascot controversy would be appreciated. It appears very bloated and not per Wikipedia guidelines to me, but the individual who claims to have contributed 80% of the content (and probably did) thinks otherwise and is resisting some needed trimming. A thoughtful analysis by an experienced and neutral editor or two may convince the contributor to trim the article or accept revisions by others.Sandcherry (talk) 01:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletions[edit]

I agree I was overzealous on the speedy deletion notices. However, you also removed a large number of other flags-- both added by me and predating my edit-- which were very much necessary (notability, refimprove, etc.) I'll need to put those back in. If you'd like to assist, I am specifically targeting articles that have been flagged as orphans since 2009 or earlier. Interlaker (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Interlaker (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  • HW, I suppose removing the speedy was valid, but the other tags were valid too. Interlaker, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Lee (reporter). Thanks to both, Drmies (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    • No, you're quite wrong about the tags. One claimed the article "relies too much on references to primary sources", which is dead wrong -- the tag was applied in 2007 and should have been removed in 2009 when the primary sourcing was removed. The other claimed the text was "written like a résumé", even though it was straightforward prose describing the article subject's major reporting jobs. Once again, the tag was initially applied years ago, the problem was resolved by subsequent editing, and the tag was obsolete. I'm certainly puzzled by this comment, and why you grudgingly "suppose removing the speedy was valid"; the rationale for the speedy was "because it has relied on primary sources sine 2007 and has been flagged as written like a resume since 2009", which bears no relationship to any valid criterion for speedy deletion, and would be inadequate grounds for standard deletion, not to mention the fact that the tags were plainly inaccurate. Interlaker spent a good deal of time yesterday placing uniformly invalid, out-of-process speedy tags on dozens of articles; I put a good deal of effort into cleaning up the mess Interlaker created, and you respond by hassling me over a quite minor point that on simple checking is seen to be demonstrably wrong. I know it's a hobby among one faction of the administrative corps to hassled The Big Bad Wolfowitz, but in matters like this it just damages the encyclopedia. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Wow. That's a complete misreading of the tone and content of my comment, but I wouldn't want to stand in the way of a good conspiracy. Have a great day. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Well, if you had a rational explanation for complaining about my removal of obsolete and clearly invalid tags, it would be nice if you provided it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
          • As far as the article on Jean Lee (reporter) goes, I disagree about your removal of the resume tag. However, I won't fight you on that. In order to clear up any confusion for anyone else, however, I took the step of removing any unsourced material from the article. Several lines of material had been flagged as lacking citations since 2008, and I was well within my rights to remove them. Again, I agree that I was overzealous with the speedy deletion notices. At the same time, I believe it pays off to err on the side of caution-- all it takes is one Jar'Edo Wens article to undermine Wikipedia far more than a few misplaced speedy deletion notices ever could. I've been editing since 2006 and it pains me to see "citation needed" flags that go back almost to when I started, without the unsourced information having been removed in the intervening time. At any rate, as I mentioned before I've been targeting older articles flagged as orphans. If you'd like to join me in removing unsourced material, and adding (or as the case may be sometimes, removing) flags, then I'll welcome your participation. Interlaker (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

My talk page[edit]

Why isn't it allowed? How is it a violation? Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Because our policy on nonfree content provides that nonfree content cannot be used outside articlespace. See WP:NFCC#9.

July 2015[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Seagull123. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Alyssa Miller without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Section blanking is not very helpful, even if it is "gossipmongering". Thanks.  Seagull123  Φ  13:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit to user draft: Thank you.[edit]

Thank you for your recent editing comment regarding your change to the draft template I've been working on. I'm still learning all the complexities and peculiarities of Wikipedia editing so your message about WP:NFCC and usage outside the article namespace was helpful. I had to spend some time sorting it out though because your edit was a deletion of File:MLmadridlogotipo.png which (according to what I found on the file page) isn't actually listed as NFCC. Assuming WP:GOODFAITH though, I did find some other changes to be made based on your comments so I'll be reverting and editing appropriate to your guidance. As far as I can tell, the proper WP:EQ (I'm still learning this too) is to provide appropriate notice here. Hope I'm doing this right. N8 21:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Kathy Hilton[edit]

Hi there, just wondered why you deleted the credits I added on Kathy's she did appear in those credits... And also the year she retired from acting was 1979 not 74 Cullen1987 (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

John B. Thomas[edit]

FYI this article has already been deleted twice, which is why I tagged it so quickly. Still, if you want to give them another chance, that's fine. Agtx (talk) 01:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you![edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services


Sign up now


Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015[edit]

IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO!

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pablo Picasso. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing....Modernist (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

This is as clear case of routine enforcement of WP:NFCC#1 as one could ask for, and your edit summary accusation of "VANDALISM" is hard to see as indicating that you are disputing this in good faith. Your interpretation of WP:NFCC#1 is Absolutely wrong...Modernist (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

I'm sorry I didn't know Saturn star (talk) 03:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Michael Richards[edit]

Hello. I'd like to discuss to you about the Michael Richards "Personal life" section. It appears that you have deleted the information concerning his relationship with Ann Talman because you claim it is gossip. I have created a section in regards to Ann Talman on the article's talk page and I'd like to invite you to join the discussion.Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair use[edit]

I did not know that the cover image of the book may not be used in the portal. Can you guide me to the policy related to it? Mhhossein (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#9, which generally prohibits the use of nonfree images outside articlespace. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

NFCC[edit]

I suggest you contact the uploader of the images that you find the material not "fair use" as each image is directly and specifically connected to the MITSFS. In fact, the first such image for Astounding was made by the MITSFS with the direct permission and encouragement of the magazine's publisher <g>. I tend to oppose indiscriminate "fair use" but suggest you graciously reconsider your opinion here, indeed. I was fortunate enough to have met Mr. Gernsback, who gave over $1,000 to the organization (IIRC he gave a Gestetner to the club - and later one of the Gestetners, as an MIT student, was a member as well). And I would love to have the alternating left and right placement restored - it makes the page look better even on iPhones. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Rockteem Bhattacharjee (Actor)‎[edit]

Please take a look at the Talk page of the article - there was a recent AfD and this repost has exactly the same issues.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:G4 more carefully. It states that G4 does not apply to a page "which was deleted via proposed deletion or speedy deletion". The action you cite was a prior speedy deletion, which supersedes the pending AFD. If the reason for the prior speedy deletion still applies, that tag should be applied -- not G4. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah so just for my clarification. The article was speedy deleted and the closed AfD reflected that rather than AfD consensus.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
That's right on target. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Emeraude Toubia[edit]

Hello, this is a comment about this edit. I added those two sources (the gossip magazine People en Español and Billboard) because I was trying to establish notability for her (outside of her being a random beauty pageant contest in the United States and an actress on Spanish-language television shows and commercials). The user who started her Wikipedia article did not include *any* sources, and I had never heard of Emeraude Toubia before coming across her Wiki article, so I just googled and added all of the news articles that mentioned her name, including those two sources. Not for gossip purposes. Just fyi. 12.180.133.18 (talk) 03:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

BAMIL (Musician)[edit]

FYI: Re your decline of the G4 speedy: The nominator indeed failed to link to a previous AfD, but on the article talk page I had linked to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bamil Gutierrez Collado, a more recent AfD (from 2014) than the one you had apparently found (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bamil) from 2009. I don't know if this affects your assessment, but I wanted to be sure you had seen all of the relevant info. Thank you for your time. --Finngall talk 15:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

It's still not G4-eligible, because it includes a referenced claim of an award in 2015, which means it's not substantially identical to the deleted version for two reasons. I know it's hard to drive the stake through the heart of lousy articles like this, but it's often the case that standard deletion processes are required. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, no worries there. But on further review, the article is a direct copypaste from his bio on his Reverbnation site, so I've tagged it as a copyvio. Yes, this type of thing is frustrating, but irrespective of the persistent efforts of the article creator(s), the guy isn't miles away from the notability standard, so I suppose we just have to be open to reassessment within reason. --Finngall talk 17:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Demi Lovato[edit]

In my recent edit, you said "Wikipedia is not a celebrity hookup history". Of course it is because I wrote it in her personal life part. I haven't add it back again because I think we need to talk about it first. (Bistymings (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha Quest[edit]

Young cats.jpg

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I have just commented/recommended keep on the above afd. I appreciate the sentiments you gave in the discussion but hope my suggestion of a WP:TEA is okay.


Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you need more than a cup of tea. Maybe you should take a break; I'm worried about your stress level. Either way, I want to remind you that Wikipedia:Civility|civility]] is a part of Wikipedia's code of conduct. Maybe you're better at I am at finding references; maybe you're more patient with un-referenced material. But there's absolutely no reason to go ad homenim. Behavior like yours makes people shy about contributing to the encyclopedia, and that hurts everyone. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I think not. Pointing out that you didn't bother to check Google Scholar in looking for sources on the work one of the most distinguished female authors of the twentieth century isn't an "ad homenim" (sic) attack; it's pointing out your failure to comply with WP:BEFORE and related aspects of deletion practice. And not for the first time. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Flying Saucers Are Real, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Summer King, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jedi Quest, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold Days, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vector Prime. Nominating articles for deletion without making competent attempts to assess the subjects' notability is disruptive, and you should expect to be called out for doing it repeatedly. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Other Worlds, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kelvin Kent (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Why did you reverted my changes?[edit]

Hey! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Hope you are doing well, I request you kindly don't revert my edits into this Template:Sindh Uni Alumni , because it adds more beauty and relevance after adding a relevant image of the user box. I hope you better understand and will avoid such illogical reverts. Thanks.--Jogi don (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

No. WP:NFC and WP:NFCC, which incorporate policy, strictly prohibit the display of nonfree images in templates, whatever the aesthetic value may be. Whenever you display a nonfree image outside articlespace, the use is automatically flagged for review and presumptive removal. As you've likely noticed by now, another user has already removed the noncompliant use. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

speedy decline of Mariam gabunia[edit]

Hi Could you explain why it does not fit into the WP:A11. See : Talk:Mariam gabunia and User:Ketrin doulse. Thanks! Peppy Paneer (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Because A11 does not apply to real people, and I cannot fathom how anyone could think it does. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
haha...fine..I understood that it does not apply in this case Face-smile.svg Thank you...I read WP:A11 and Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance...but where is it explicitly mention that it does not apply for real people (king of Mars) ? Peppy Paneer (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Jumping in - that's because that's what WP:A7 is for. Garchy (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
@Garchy: ... Face-smile.svg Thank you...got it! Peppy Paneer (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Arun Honnedevasthana Shamrao[edit]

I hadn't seen the previous CSD, sorry for adding a second. I can see significance, but I don't think it will pass notability muster so I've added an XFD, in case you want to add your thoughts: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arun Honnedevasthana Shamrao Thanks! Garchy (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC) (P.S., I "thanked" you for your last edit on this talk page because I thought you had a perfect/funny reply about WP A11.)

Your edit on Lucio Battisti (album)[edit]

Hi, I'm writing to you because of your edit at Lucio Battisti (album). Thanks for the contribution but I think you should have discussed before making an edit that -if unnoticed- could have permanently destroyed somebody's else work. With that said, the article had a small part of "relevant commentary": it was exactly the part you removed - the audio files' captions, that contained the only bit of music-related information in the article. It is certainly little, but the entire article is a stub, and to me it's no surprise that a 2-line article (track listing apart) has a short commentary. The article will grow and so will the audio files commentary. Cheers, --Una giornata uggiosa '94 · So, what do you want to talk about? 10:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

No. The use rationale for each file stated "It illustrates an educational article that specifically discusses the song from which this sample was taken. The section of music used is discussed in the article in relation to the song's lyrics, musical and vocal style". Three of the five captions included no substantive commentary whatever, and therefore were not used consistently with their rationales. The other two captions included superficial, unsourced commentary which itself called for removal as original research; and the content was so insubstantial that they could not support use under NFCC#8. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Use of non-free images on User Pages.[edit]

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: How does one determine that an image is "non-free", and should not be used on User Pages? Thanks. --- Professor JR (talk) 18:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The simplest answer is that is the image file is hosted on Wikipedia Commons, it should be OK; if it's hosted elsewhere, it's probably not. When you look at the image's File page (which you reach by clicking on the image), the page will either say (in a line underneath the image) "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons" or "Non-free media information and use rationale". The former indicates the file is free (public domain or appropriately licensed for use); the latter indicates it isn't. A relatively small percentage of the off-Commons files are also free, and don't carry the "nonfree media information" line, but those need to be checked carefully. For book covers, the general rule is that pre-1923 covers are safe to use; later covers may not be. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Thank you so much, as I've long been confused on this score. That is really helpful information, and it was generous of you to take the time to so thoroughly explain it. Thanks again. --- Professor JR (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
In appreciation for your generous assistance with regard to the use of public domain, versus non-free, photo-images in Wikipedia. Much appreciated. Professor JR (talk) 09:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have new messages at Ayub407's talk page.
Message added 13:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ayub407 (talk) 13:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Buck Adams[edit]

What's the blp violation here? It's not the name. He's dead, so the BLP issue can't be about him. I cannot find anything in the ref that's derogatory about anyone. I know and respect your work so I won't revert but I'm genuinely baffled. What am I missing? David in DC (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a BLP violation with regard to the boxer, who appears to be a different, presumably living person with a similar, common name. The boxer is described as a resident of Corpus Christi, TX, the porn performer as a resident of CA. The porn star's bios generally state he was a boxer before entering porn in 1984, but that date is more or less the midpoint in the boxer's career. The boxer had bouts all over the US and even one in Italy, which I'd expect would have resulted in some hype about being nationally/internationally known, but I haven't even spotted one source not based on the Wikipedia article that even describes him as a "professional" boxer. There's at least one other boxer named Charles Allen who's a boxer in the same time frame, whose last fight is in 1983, which is a better fit, but he's described as based in Chicago. I just don't see enough evidence to connect that boxer with the porn performer, despite the similar names. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. David in DC (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of magazines released by Marvel Comics in the 1970s, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fumetti (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

To clarify...[edit]

...I mean you should start a section saying why it is original research. I see sources, although I cannot immediately verify many of them. There are issues with the added text, but I don't think reverting them with one edit summary and without even notifying the user responsible for adding the text is not helpful. While it is important that editors be aware of the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, I think editor retention is also important. The editor is not being neutral? Point out what is wrong, and don't be vague and go without saying the why. If you had completely reverted the edit but taken a moment to explain on the article's talk page or Bouldergeist's talk page, I might have been alright. I just don't think you went about it in the best way. If you disagree with me in some way, I respect that, but again, I think you should be more specific in pointing out the problem. Thanks. Dustin (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I added tags to the article based on what you said in your edit summary. I don't get where the original research you speak of is, no I neglected to add an OR tag. Dustin (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

SubtropicalMan at ANI[edit]

Hi, I asked in thread about more history, diffs, etc. to document more actionable interference. I wanted to ask you here more directly, do you intend to provide more solid background information in the proposal for the topic ban? If you need a few days that's fine, but I am concerned that it's a fairly severe sanction and I'm just not seeing actionable disruption in the thread or what I saw spending a while looking at the behavior in logs and histories. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 13 August[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Dead Sea 1618[edit]

Hi, I would disagree that Dead Sea 1618 makes any credible claim of importance. Why did you remove the tag? Westroopnerd (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Because putting an A7 tag on a new article approximately one minute after an inexperienced editor has written just a single sentence is abysmally rude, stupis, and a violation of WP:BITE. The comments you wrote on your talk page on this point also indicate you don't properly understand the difference between "notability" and "significance", which is a lower standard. If a subject is "potentially notable", depending on the sourcing, there's a claim of significance sufficient to survive A7. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

"blithering idiot and/or probable sock at work"[edit]

I notice that you recently reverted one of my edits with that summary. What the HELL is that supposed to mean? Westroopnerd (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hullaballoo. You have been here 9 years. You know not to call other editors "blithering idiot". It does not matter if they are an established editor or even a drive by troll. We don't allow personal attacks here. I don't think any action is required in response to this other than a friendly note to please not let it become a pattern. While I rejected the CSD request I can see where the user was coming from, what little assertion of notability there is is weak at best. Chillum 20:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Please stop trolling my contributions[edit]

I've still received no reply from you about calling me a "blithering idiot", so can you now stop taking CSD templates off of pages that in no way have a place on Wikipedia? Thanks. Westroopnerd (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

No. You do not appear to me to be a good faith editor. You have repeatedly placed inappropriate speedy tags on just-created articles from new users, without giving them any reasonable opportunity to finish writing the articles. Nominating articles for speedy deletion one minute after their creator's first edit is abusive, shows a lack of WP:COMPETENCE, shows a lack of reasonable civility, and grossly violates WP:BITE. Even though your account was registered barely 24 hours ago, you are plainly not a new editor; your user page makes claims about their past editing, so you are not making a clean start. You therefore appear to be a bad-hand account renewing misconduct about which you were warned or sanctioned, and I suspect your account should be blocked. I note you make attempt to substantively justify your misbehaviour. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Removal[edit]

Can, in the future, you give some reason when removing speedy deletion tags I've put up? Deniz Orhun had absolutely no indication of importance (and it was past the 10-15 minute recommended threshold), yet you removed it, calling it "disruptive" with no further explanation. Care to explain? Westroopnerd (talk) 22:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

It was eminently clear that the Deniz Orhun article was not a legitimate A7 candidate, and marking it that way shows, at best, a marked lack of WP:COMPETENCE, and probably worse. The article (apparently accurately) identifies as a television presenter on a notable national broadcaster. The identification is appropriately sourced. Your claim that this is "absolutely no indication of importance" is bereft of sensibility and logic, and once again shows you have no business making deletion nominations. And I plainly did not call this particular nomination "disruptive", although in retrospect I certainly should have. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. Considering you appear to loathe every aspect of my existence on Wikipedia, you might want to reconsider saying that I have no business making deletion nominations, considering the only ones that have been failed were removed by you. Westroopnerd (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe that. I expect that your prior account contains ample examples of prior misbehaviour, And I'm already sick of your incessant innuendo. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
If you're so concerned about that, why don't you check the account itself? User:Revolution1221 Westroopnerd (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

nonfree image may not be displayed in template[edit]

Why not? is there policy for that somewhere? ; if there is then revert also BMW and maybe other templates -->Typ932 T·C 20:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:NFCC #9. The image in the BMW template is considered a free image as it is too simple to receive copyright protection. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Jason Statham[edit]

Hey, I'm not trying to get into an edit war or content dispute over the relationship of Jason Statham, but the content is sourced and the couple still appear to be together as of late July, 2015(at least). I am bringing this here on your Talk page because I don't even think this needs a Talk page discussion on the Article Talk page, but if you insist, I will discuss it there with you. I will provide more sources, but I think that's not really necessary unless there is a change in the status. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 03:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Revert[edit]

Your changes (remove images from article) has been reverted, according to the Wikipedia:CYCLE: discuss and consensus first. English Wikipedia allows the use nonfree images. Also, these images are relevant to the content of the article and can be helpful (WP:NFCC #8). Your change is controversial and even if you have any argument, it may be debatable and even as you have a different opinion - this is debatable and must to be discuss first. If any changes are controversial and debatable, I have the right to undo changes and new changes can be made after gaining a consensus. Please stop edit warring, discuss and consensus first - according to the Wikipedia:CYCLE. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2)
20:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

No. WP:CYCLE (better known as WP:BRD is an essay. WP:NFCC is policy, and it forbids the use of replaceable nonfree images. That you believe the images meet NFCC#8 is irrelevant; even if they do (and that's debatable), they fail other criteria and therefore can't be used. No discussion is required for their removsal. Restoring such images without consensus that all NFCC criteria are met is disruptive editing, and its repetition is likely to result in blocking. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
No, you wrong. These images meets WP:NFCC, please see description of photos [23][24][25]. As I wrote earlier, your change is controversial and debatable, must to be discuss before changes. Please stop disruptive editing, its repetition is likely to result in blocking. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2)
21:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
No, you're, as usual, completely wrong. Read the descriptions yourself. Nogt even the image uploaders claimed the images weren't replaceable. You've been warned enough. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Mandingo (actor)[edit]

Stop removing sourced content from ym articles! In Mandingo (actor) you removed a whole sourced content (In popular culture, Penis size). It's annoying stop it! --Croxx036 (talk) 09:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

If you think that's annoying, wait until you're blocked for repeatedly inserting content with reliable sources into BLPs. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
So you think New York Post is not reliable? WTF even that newspaper reported about the size of Mandingo's penis. --Croxx036 (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Since that's a source I left in the BLP, any reasonable, competent editor would infer I deemed it sufficiently reliable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Seriously you deserve to be blocked for revoming sourced concent from many pornographic articles. --Croxx036 (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
WP:BLP requires the use of "high quality" reliable sources. If you won't accept that, you shouldn't be editing BLPs here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Persistence of Vision (collection), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Collection (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Removing info[edit]

why are you vandalising a page and removing sponsor references without proof person is no longer sponsored. Also removing key info that is hugely relevant in NZ

Because WP:BLP applies to all biographies. No "proof" is required to remove long-unsourced statements. Reliable sourcing is required to support content. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Johnny Sins[edit]

Why don't you noninate this article for deletion. If pail the porn bio'c citera lol --Croxx036 (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have new messages at HitroMilanese's talk page.
Message added 21:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hitro talk 21:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Niccolò Turinetto[edit]

Hello, I duly respect your view. But you can not decline speedy on behavioral guidelines, you should consider wikipedia policies first. By removing A7 tag you assert that this article indicates importance and credible claims of significance , which it doesn't . I am not going to take it to Afd or re-nominate it but you should think a little. Regards. Hitro talk 21:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you out of your mind? What has he written? It's not about a distant planet. You expect sources on that. You are an awesome optimistic. If somebody is acting jerk between me and you then it's not me. Read the article. He wrote most probably about himself and he found you The Saviour. A reporter, photographer, video maker, YouTube, dj and blogger. born in 1998 who created luxury and beautiful things like supercars while studying economics. Lol :p. Let it hang for 7 days, you'll be happy. Dead Sea 1618 had references from Day 1 and even your edit summary says it claims importance, it certainly does. Why didn't you write same edit summary here when declining speedy? Happy Editing. Regards. Hitro talk 22:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jules de Grandin may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • included stories published between 1925 and 1930; Quinn provided an introductory essay.<ref>]http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?251238 ISFDB bibliography]</ref>
  • assembled and edited by [[Robert Weinberg]]. The collections included about one-third of the series), as well as the only full-length de Grandin novel, ''The Devil's Bride''. The volumes carried

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

A Mile Beyond the Moon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Science Fiction Adventures
Arthur Tofte (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Boy's Life

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Friendly Cup[edit]

Normally, if an article is in the process of creation, I would not tag it for deletion. But a quick search shows that there is no competition called the "Friendly Cup" at the level that would involve that selection of top-tier football clubs. The article is likely a hoax, but it is clearly an article that provides insufficient context to ascertain what the author is writing about. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Katherine Kelly/ Rylan Clark[edit]

They are married, you didn't need to change the names of their spouses. Littlerhelper101 (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Ryan Clark and Rylan Clark are two different people. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I was sure that when I typed in google 'Katherine Kelly husband' it came up with 'Rylan Clark' also, I am sure that I watched an interview with Clark and he stated that he was bisexual, not gay. I will try to find evidence to back this up.

Speedy decline at Naseebo Lal[edit]

This is the version as it existed[26] after I reverted the POV cruft that was added this morning. Over 5000 bytes of unsourced fancruft was added today. Would you do me the favor of looking at it again, and reconsidering? Not a huge deal one way or another, but unsourced additions by a single fan do not an article make... ScrpIronIV 17:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  • The article says the subject performed on the soundtrack of multiple notable films. That's enough to survive A7, despite the ghastly prose. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. If there are no objections, I will consider AfD - assuming that would be a reasonable course of action. ScrpIronIV 17:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Spottoon[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Spottoon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or an organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Mean as custard (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jack Williamson may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[[[File:Wonder stories 193105.jpg|thumb|right|Williamson's " Through the Purple Cloud" was the cover

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to E. E. Smith may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Amazing stories 193107.jpg|thumb| ''Spacehounds of IPC'' was also serialized in ''Amazing Stories'')]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring on Bristol Palin[edit]

Please note that BLP allows you to remove unsourced information. Please do not delete well referenced information like you did here and here w/o discussion. This is not about trivia - the subject of the biography took a position on a politiical controversy. Thank you. Victor Victoria (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Go away, troll. Using Wikipedia in order to shame women whose views you disagree with is grossly unacceptable. The internet is replete with places where you can indulge your misogyny. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: Deletion of deletion tag[edit]

Hi. You tried to message me here, but I didn't receive the message because you added a space in my username, so sorry for the delay in getting back to you. The reason that the edits didn't appear in the contributions history, is because they were blocked by the edit filter and so were never actually committed. You can see the user filter log here. Anyway, it looks like the article issue has being resolved, so that's a good outcome. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 11:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Clement Davies c1955.jpg[edit]

You have persistently deleted this image erronously from the article United Kingdom general election, 1955.

  • You first deleted it saying "obviously fails NFCC#8". NFCC#8 is about contextual significance and the image clearly provides contextual significance to the article. I re-instated the image, saying this.
  • You then deleted it again adding "not even a use rationale". You overlooked the fact that the image had a use rationale. I re-instated the image, saying this.
  • Despite this, you again deleted the image, claiming the rationale was not valid, stating "nonfree image may not be used for identification outside the subject's biography". I re-instated the image, saying the use rationale was valid, saying nonfree image may be used for identification outside the subject's biography.
  • You have now chosen to delete the image again, claiming an unspecified NFCC violation. Earlier you claimed that non-free images can not be used in articles that are not biographies. There is nothing in NFCC policy that remotely suggests that this is the case.
  • It seems to me as if you didn't bother to read the file's summary, deleted it by mistake, and when challenged, invented bogus reasons to support your errornous actions rather than apologise and move on. Your most recent actions show that you have learned nothing in the interim. I would urge you to follow wikipedia policies in future. Graemp (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that you have no interest in complying with NFC policy, and prefer to cast aspersions on editors who enforce it. You provide no support for your claim that "nonfree image may be used for identification outside the subject's biography", because it is wholly unsupported by the governing policy and guidelines. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia NFCC policy is key and I have checked and there is nothing in policy that backs up your claim of improper use. I suggest you avoid compounding mistakes re-read policy. Graemp (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
You need to find provisions of NFCC policy/guidelines which permit the use. There are myriad ways to fail the NFCC, far too many to be listed in the detail you insist on. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
You specifically claim that non-free images can only be used in biographical articles, if such a specific claim were true, then there would be a specific mention of this in policy but there isn't even a hint suggesting what you claim is true. Graemp (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
That wasn't my claim. I pointed out that the standard rationale you used was limited to biographical articles, and that mutilating its text so that it no longer reflected policy. When you uploaded the image you said it was "for visual identification of the person in question, at the top of his/her biographical article". It's not being used for that, and you still provide no other policy-based rationale for its use. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
The image was uploaded using the wizard, which was designed to assist editors not familiar with the process. The wizard provides a form of words to assist with WP:NFCC#8. These words are not cast in stone and any form of words can be used. Many editors don't even use the wizard and write their own non-free use rationale from scratch using Template:Non-free use rationale. I prefer to use the wizard and then amended it to properly reflect the image's use. You regard this as mutilation, I call it complying with WP:NFCC#8. Graemp (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
That's deceptive nonsense. You uploaded an image with a rationale for use in one article and changed it to a different article only after yout screwup was pointed out. And you still haven't cited anything in NFC policy to justify your claim that just because a person is mentioned in article a nonfree image may be used. There isn't any policy support for that. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


"Rationale contradicted by cursory Google search as well"?[edit]

Hello there!

A few hours ago, you undid my efforts to merge the articles KDEX-AM and KDEX-FM, but I'm struggling to understand your reasoning. My attempt to merge these two pages is based on the following motivation:

  • The pages are nearly identical, i. e. these are two different pages for one and the same radio network. The only difference is that one is for their AM frequency and the other one is for their FM frequency, although they broadcast the same content on both frequencies. This is, to all appearances, unwanted data redundancy, isn't it?
  • Both of them share the same callsign named KDEX in the FCC's AM/FM databases (compare over here for AM and here for FM).

Therefore, I tried to have KDEX-FM removed, so that KDEX-AM could be moved to KDEX and be edited accordingly to accommodate for the FM frequency band as well.

Could you please elaborate on what I did wrong at my attempt to merge these two pages? Thanks a lot!

Cheers, subsonic17 02:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subsonic17 (talkcontribs)

  • Well, to begin with, the fact that they currently broadcast the same content right now doesn't establish that they always have. or that they have a common history. If they were once independent operations, but later came under common ownership, merger of the articles probably wouldn't be appropriate. I think you need to establish much more than current common operations to justify merging the two articles. At the very least. talk page discussions are needed, and at the conclusion of the process, the superfluous articles would ordinarily not be deleted, but merely redirected. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing "CMNF" article[edit]

STOP unjustified wholesale deletion of text. Unsourced material is not taboo. I tell you that and you delete the text again saying once again that it's unsourced, but it doesn't matter.

I am not a Wikipedia editor. Therefore I do not know where to complain about your actions. Can you please tell me where can I complain about yours, as I see it, vandalism? (I'm entitled to my opinion, and I call what you do vandalism).

Please provide a LINK to a page where I can complain to encyclopedia authorities about your behavior.

Also stop using slang words like "SYNTH" in your description of your deletions. I am a good-faith visitor, not a regular editor, and I shouldn't be required to know your slang. I suspect that you use it to alienate non-regular editors. Don't forget that this is "ENCYCLOPEDIA ANYONE CAN EDIT". 95.28.219.174 (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

But this is not the "encyclopedia where anyone can edit without regard to its content policies and guidelines". Given the number of times over the last two years IPs and SPAs have added back this material after its removal by experienced editors, in particular the linkspam in External links section, it's hard to take your claim of being a "good-faith visitor" seriously. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Don't forget a link to a page where I can complain to authorities about your vandalism. 95.28.219.174 (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Unsourced content is a scourge to editors. Anyone who claims not to be a Wikipedia editor, and does not want to learn our policies and practices, should be left out in the cold when they add unsourced content. "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit" makes for a good slogan, but a lousy encyclopedia. For me, I would be happy to see IP's restricted to pending revisions, permanently. Let them edit - but with oversight. It would stick to the principle, but make fighting vandalism and SPA's a whole lot easier. ScrpIronIV 20:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
"The encyclopedia that anyone can edit" makes for a good slogan, but a lousy encyclopedia." - WOW. Thankfully, it's not for you to decide. "Unsourced content is a scourge to editors." - EDITORS are a scourge for content that happily was there for 5-6 years and didn't offend no one but EDITORS. "Anyone who claims not to be a Wikipedia editor, and does not want to learn our policies and practices, should be left out in the cold" - wow again. THIS IS SO AGAINST OFFICIAL POLICIES. I will report you also. Since cowardly you and cowardly Wolfowitz decided not to ANSWER MY DIRECT QUESTION WHERE I CAN COMPLAIN, THUS REFUSING ME A LINE OF COMMUNICATION WITH AUTHORITIES, I will find it myself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents right? 95.28.219.174 (talk) 10:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I am reporting you two. Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 95.28.219.174 (talk) 10:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
No there's not. Perhaps the IP came to their senses and realized the likely boomerang effect such a report would have?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Not YET. There's no rush. Read how scary the "boomerang effect" is to me right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ScrapIronIV#Please_help_with_vandalism I'm just taking my time. I need to put all their violations together - like denying the line of communication with authorities, publicly denouncing Wikipedia policies, bad faith mass-deletions etc. Also I'm male, so you can stop applying the wrong pronoun to me if you're educationally able™ (as if everyone with a nickname is gender-identifiable by their nick, like you, for example. Definitely not you, "Ponyo"). It's just my courtesy to give Balloo and Scrap time to prepare.
HEY COWARDS! (THIS MEANS Hullaballoo AND ScrapIron) YOUR CURRENT RESPONSE TO MY "Don't forget a link to a page where I can complain to authorities" BULLET-POINT IS, FOR SOME REASON, "Unsourced content is a scourge to editors". HOW ABOUT A REAL ANSWER? DO YOU AGREE IT SHOULD GO TO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents or maybe posting at another section of Admins' noticeboard will have maximum effect and speedier discussion? THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE TO PROVE YOU'RE NOT COWARDLY WEAKLINGS. STEP FORWARD AND SAY "I'M SURE WHAT I DONE IS RIGHT. I'M NOT AFRAID TO BE SCRUTINIZED". 95.28.219.174 (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
There's gonna be a boomerang, alright. GABHello! 13:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't care, I haven't got a Wiki nickname and my IP is dynamic. Duh. 95.28.219.174 (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The image is used at Karachi Dolphins So Iam using it on this user box too[edit]

The image is used at Karachi Dolphins So Iam using it on this user box too KArachi Dolphins. Kindly restore the image on this user box,--Jogi 007 (talk) 07:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

  • No. Just because a nonfree image is used appropriately in a particular article does not mean it is free for use elsewhere. Wikipedia policy governing use of nonfree images, in particular WP:NFCC#9, prohibits the use of nonfree image outside articles and articlespace. In particular, nonfree images may not be displayed in userspace. Since userboxes are only placed in userspace, they may not include nonfree images. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Mike Tyson[edit]

I left a comment about your recent edit at Talk:Mike Tyson86.181.32.66 (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

An apology[edit]

After making some rude and sarcastic remarks against you, I must apologize for it – sarcasm and ignorance make the editing environment toxic, and I did just exactly that Thanks for taking the time to rebut my close; your premises were valid and I just completely, improperly, and, without a single ounce of decorum of my own, ignored them. Esquivalience t 01:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Defenders (short story), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Novelette (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Inaugural Playboy Nude Centerfolds[edit]

I'm not sure if a secondary source can be found, but some research is necessary. kencf0618 (talk) 04:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Declined speedy[edit]

Hi Wolfy, I see you declined the CSD G4 nomination of Ladma. Of course as a non-admin I can't see the deleted article, but the Saltzman1959 comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ladma sure does make it sound like it's the same "small comedy collective." Did you want to reconsider? The Dissident Aggressor 18:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Who did you get angry recently[edit]

Feel free to look at the two early edits on 2015-10-25 in Special:Contributions/122.169.49.188. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Somebody who's been trying to get Mihir Shah deleted for the last month or so. Probably something to do with local or academic politics. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


Flute Solo[edit]

Hi; I wonder if you could explain your decision to remove the piece by Brecht, since it has direct relevance to the text, having been mentioned specifically and used to illustrate his work as a good example of the art he's most famous for. I believe it has the right copyright label, and certainly falls within fair use. Best, Franciselliott (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

First of all, it consists entirely of an image of text. It is, to say the least, rather difficult to maintain that a depiction of text "could not be conveyed in words", as the use rationale states. Second, even if you do not accept the principle in general, in this specific case the piece can be adequately expressed in text. Cage's 4′33″ accomplishes the task without using a nonfree file, and the same can be done here. I wouldn't deny that this falls within "fair use", but meeting fair use requirements isn't sufficient to satisfy the requirements of WP:NFC and WP:NFCC. The WMF has set a very high bar limiting the use of nonfree content; the en-wiki standard is "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". That's a much more restrictive standard than fair use. "Merely" being an excellent illustration isn't enough to meet it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

new user name[edit]

You said that LB's harasser is working under a new user name. Is that something you know he is actually doing or is that just conjecture? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I said he's allowed to edit under a new username, since no sanctions were placed on him, and he had said he was considering returning under a different name. There's at least one shady account created since he left that shares some of his behaviours, but they aren't terribly distinctive and are clumsier than I'd have expected. Given the way that the anti-outing policy is being more tightly enforced these days, and that he exposed his own real-life identity on-wiki, I really can't be much more specific. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:CLEANSTART "If you attempt a clean start, but are recognized, you will be held accountable for your actions under both the old and new accounts." and "However, if an editor uses their new account to resume editing articles or topics in the same manner that resulted in harassment or a negative reputation in the first place (becoming involved in disputes, edit warring or other forms of disruptive editing), the editor will probably be recognized and connected to the old account. ". If linking two accounts is risking outing (due to one of the accounts previously being outed) CLEANSTART/SOCK pages should probably clarify that.
In any case, I understand your point, but your point presumes the answer to a question - that we know LB's harrasser. I personally agree that there was sufficient evidence, but the functionaries did not. You can't complain about the punishment, when they are stopped on the identification. One of the "not sufficiently proven" voices last time was Thydruulf who said something about if the identity had been considered conclusive enough there would almost definitely have been a site ban.
Gaijin42 (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
One other comment, "even though that opportunity was denied to Lightbreather". Lightbreather's own foibles led to her sanctions. Her foibles do not justify the harassment, but neither does the harassment absolve her missteps. Had she been found blameless, I'm sure she would have been allowed (and taken) a clean start, but even her strongest defender in the committee (GW) found her at fault in numerous areas. Conflating the harassment with her own actions does nobody a service, not LB, and not greater womankind either. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
There was an episode of on-wiki harassment, paralleling the comment directed at Malik Shabazz. There is no question whose account posted the comment involved. No action was taken. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure which comment/editor you are referring to then. Was it brought up during the case? Was it used in any of the findings? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
It was not mentioned, and apparently ignored, during the case. It occurred during the case (via edit summary). Lightbreather did complain to an admin about it, who sloughed it off. I don't know if she raised it directly with ArbComm. Since I'm not allowed to point it out directly, I'll draw this parallel [27]. Very much like the comment directed at Malik Shabazz, a barb not so likely to be noticed if you weren't its target, but here there was no possibility it was inadvertent. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well, Not being able to see the precise edit in question, its difficult to say for sure, but assuming it was something on par with the book you just linked to : I could certainly see someone being trouted over that, or used as additional evidence to weigh in against someone as a pattern of behavior, but it seems unlikely to draw severe or lengthy sanction on its own. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

And now its moot! Gaijin42 (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors arbitration case opened[edit]

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors retitled Arbitration enforcement 2[edit]

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 12:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Taking Down Pictures[edit]

Hullaballoo: please explain to me, in plain english - not Wikipedia speak - the several circumstances under which an image can be used on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:151D:87:21E3:E02A:68:1BD7 (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hullaballoo: please read the following from the Wikipedia policy page which allows me to use this cover art: Images[edit] Shortcut: WP:NFCI Some non-free images may be used on Wikipedia, providing they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Wikipedia's own guidelines for non-free content. Non-free images that reasonably could be replaced by free content images are not suitable for Wikipedia. All non-free images must meet each non-free content criterion; failure to meet those overrides any acceptable allowance here. The following list is not exhaustive but contains the most common cases where non-free images may be used and is subject to the restrictions listed below at unacceptable use of images, notably §7 which forbids the use of press agency images when the image itself is not the subject of commentary.

Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:151D:87:21E3:E02A:68:1BD7 (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You've answered your own question: not for identification without critical commentary. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you going to be civil and help me or are you not going to be helpful? well, it seems all i have to do to make you happy is include "critical commentary". Would you then leave this page alone?

It's not civil for you to demand I drop everything I'm doing to "help" you haven't made yourself familiar with the basic WP guidelines. The general rule is that you can't use album covers to illustrate discographies, including lists of albums. See WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFC#UUI#2. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hullabaloo: it is NOT civil to insinuate that i "demanded" anything. I merely asked a question: are you going to be civil? ...and helpful. I guess i have my answer. Please note that I have included a section consisting of CRITICAL COMMENTARY near the end of the article. Because the article now contains Critical Commentary - per wikipedia rules - i have now replaced all of the pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarembo (talkcontribs) 17:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay Mr. Hullaballo: even though the page now contains Critical Commentary, it seems you would like to harass me and purposefully damages this page. If you do not cease in your destructive behavior I will have no choice but to report you to the admins and request that you be blocked from Wikipedia. Again. I will give you 24 hours before I report you to the wikipedia admins. Please reconsider your harassment. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarembo (talkcontribs) 17:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Hullaballoo: a further indication of your wanton disregard for Wikipedia rules is that policy states conflicts are supposed to be DISCUSSED on the relevant TALK pages - not to immediately harass and bully and editor with repeated undos... you NEVER engaged in a discussion on the relevant TALK page. I have now requested that you be blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarembo (talkcontribs) 17:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Should I infer from the contradiction between your two previous comments that you are dishonest, or that you do not understand the difference between 24 hours and 24 minutes? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo):  please understand that I accelerated my request to block you because, (a) your overly aggressive tactics, (b) your failure to discuss the issues on my and the pages talk page as clearly provided by wikipedia BRD guidelines, and (c) because you continued to persist in damaging the wikipedia article in question.  Your persistent actions actions caused me to change my actions.  As you 'handle" suggests, you see yourself as a wikipedia bully and your actions in this latest controversy is consistent with you tactics of bullying other editors. Bullying tactics are prohibited by wikipedia... please refer to wikipedia policies. Zarembo (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Zarembo, let me jump in here to let you know that pursuing this will in no way lead to a block for Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I wouldn't say the same for you, however, as you are on the wrong side of policy here. No administrator is going to block an editor for removing images due to legitimate copyright concerns. Edit-warring to restore them however is another story. At this point you need to follow dispute resolution; using ALL CAPS and throwing around accusations of "bullying" when another editor advises you of your errors will not give you the end result you seek.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Enemy Mine IASFM.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Enemy Mine IASFM.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Fiorina[edit]

Why is it an nfcc violation?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Replaceable nonfree image in BLP. Not even a shred of relevant sourced commentary. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Next time, I think you ought to refer specifically to what Parts of NFCC you're relying upon. Also, given the ongoing discussion at the talk page, why not participate at talk? If you’re referring to NFCC #1, there is no free equivalent showing her participation in this event. If you’re referring to NFCC #8, this non-free content significantly increases readers' understanding of the article topic, given that the image accompanies a sentence of text that says: "On September 3, 2008, Fiorina addressed the Republican National Convention." Does the image become acceptable in your opinion if I add a footnote to that sentence?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
No. Your argument here has nothing to do do with our NFC standards. The text is perfectly sufficient and requires no visual "support". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I specifically referred to the specific criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and specifically asked you to specifically identity which of those specific criteria you are relying upon. I give up. Have a nice day.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Michelle Bauer may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • California]]) is an [[United States|American]] [[B-movie]] actress, [[scream queen]] and [[Pornographic actor|pornographic actress].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

G5 CSD reversal[edit]

Hi. Not arguing with your decision, since clearly if they weren't banned when they created an article, then you are absolutely correct. But how would I know that in the future. What happened was that I had prodded another article by this same editor, and another editor G5'd it. Seeing that, I went to the other article this now banned editor had created, and did the same. Is there something I should be checking? Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 03:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Unless you're dealing with a sockpuppetry case or a topic ban, if they created the article under the name they were blocked/banned under, they created it before the block/ban. Once they're blocked/banned, they can't create articles under that username. If you're not sure, check the page history to get the date/time the article was created. Then click the contribs link for the creator, which will show the date/time for the most recent entry in their block log. Usually that takes care of it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lee Brown Coye, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Arthur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

deprod[edit]

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Skow for Girlfriends Films, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: This IP is serially deprodding articles without explanation, and I've reverted, but not about to get into an edit war. What are your suggestions for handling this on a longer term basis? ScrpIronIV 21:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to file an edit warring notice on them, since they aren't providing any explanations, and refuse to discussion the allegation that they're the sock of a blocked/banned user. I also think it's time to place a formal block request at ANI. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Hello HW and SI. There have been at least two threads about this at ANI. Here WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive903#De-prodder and here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#2602:30A:2EFE:F050:6C6F:3B3D:9F18:9068 De-prodding several random articles without explanation. On the first one most of the articles were taken to AFD but I haven't followed what went on with the second one. I suspect you are both aware of this but I thought I'd leave the links in case they will be of use with any reports that you start. MarnetteD|Talk 21:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I put in my 2¢ worth, but having read the discussions, it really doesn't look like anything will be done. ScrpIronIV 21:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

re 3RR report[edit]

You said:

"refuses to address the claim in any forum"

Sorry but you are mistaken. If you believe I am the same editor that was objecting to PRODs yesterday then I addressed the claim by responding to it. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Appealing_a_block&diff=next&oldid=688777507 . I see no need to continue responding to unfounded claims on other forums that suggest I am evading a block. I am not.

Thank you. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

That's not addressing the claim, that's the evidence of it -- a virtual admission. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
No, it's not evidence. It's ridiculous that asking about possible unblock processes that protect the user's privacy (by not requiring them to use their email) is considered evidence of evasion or sockpuppetry. As I said in that linked reply, I have no account that is blocked. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you just showed up here a few days ago and immediately became concerned about this. Perhaps you have a bridge I might be interested in purchasing, or some funds in a Nigerian bank account I could share in. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
As I clearly said in the explanation, I am occasionally affected by blocks even though I am not the offending editor. So of course I was eventually going to ask about private unblocking processes. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Gee, did your roommate get you blocked again? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
No, their little brother did it. ScrpIronIV 22:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

"disruptive editing"[edit]

Please stop reverting my edits across various articles. Thank you. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

And, of course, no blocked/banned user would ever deny it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Hopping IP is clearly WP:POINT and has been reported. Widefox; talk 01:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

deprod 2[edit]

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Joe Simmons (actor), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:884:A54E:F6D5:C2AF (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:884:A54E:F6D5:C2AF (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Abu Sayeed M Ahmed PhD[edit]

Don't get snippy. You only declined my Speedy on the page. No other speedy was placed on the page. The page was created with a speedy to begin with because the page keeps getting deleted. Bgwhite (talk) 06:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit War[edit]

Cut the BS - Leave the Kahlo painting alone. See the talk page here [28], thats been there for years. She is one of the most important 20th century artists making self-portraits. You should read a book...Modernist (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Your inept attempt at bullying, and your incivility, is noted. You make no attempt to justify inclusion of the image under our actual non-free use policy. The discussion you point to is simply your own assertion that an issue has been settled, when review of the actual discussions show that no agreement was reached. In any event, a 2007 discussion cannot establish that the use meets our current NFC/NFCC policy and guidelines, and a review of the file page history shows that multiple users have objected to its use in this article, while only you have supported it. Even in the 2007, while there clearly was consensus to include the image in articles centered on Kahlo and her work, there was no consensus to include it in other articles, particularly those without well-sourced commentary related to the specific topics of the articles. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

M G Leonard[edit]

Where is the assertion of notability? She's written a book which has yet to be published. Otherwise, my career stints at the Royal Opera House & with the NT make me about as notable.TheLongTone (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Please learn what the criteria for speedy deletion are. Only an assertion of significance, a lower standard than notability, is required to survive A7. Selling a book to a major trade publisher and having it definitely placed on its publication schedule is a sufficient assertion of significance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
A credible asserion of notability, I think. Anyway, looks like this bit of promotion is for the dumper.TheLongTone (talk) 14:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Kurt Holobaugh[edit]

Actually the close in 2013 specifically referred to re-creation after fighting three times for top tier organisation to meet WP:NMMA which the subject has yet to do.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to the general principle rather than the specific example. Since the article now claims winning a notable title subsequent to the AFD, the db-repost was clearly inappropriate. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
A second tier title is not considered notable according to WP:NMMA but I see your point. Just means a second AfD.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Football[edit]

Why did you delete in Cupa României seasons, the pictures of Steaua, because their previous name was CCA București and CSAC București ?? Can you upload the old emblem then?--Alexiulian25 (talk) 00:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The image I deleted was nonfree (under copyright), and could only be used to identify a team in an article where the team waas the article subject, as specified on the file page for the image. If the old emblem is a free image -- and it's probably not, since most team logos aren't -- I suppose you could substitute it in the articles. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kevinodonnell1976.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kevinodonnell1976.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Warp drive may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 1931 novel ''[[Islands of Space]]''.<ref>J. Gardiner, "Warp Drive - From Imagination to Reality", [[Journal of the British Interplanetary Society], vol. 61, p. 353-357 (2008)</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It girls[edit]

Hi Hullaballoo. The Cressida Bonas article doesn't really deserve the time, but I'm curious as to how to deal with the "widely referred to as" thing. She's clearly widely referred to as an "it girl".TelegraphMCPeopleHola But there likely aren't any sources that say "widely".

How about changing it to Bonas has been called an "It girl".[29][30]? Bromley86 (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Islands of Space, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hyperspace and But (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Greater Rayalaseema[edit]

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz:How to propose it. Talk:Greater Rayalaseema can also help. It is purely invented. G3. Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes Will it be applicable?--Vin09 (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Just use a standard deletion process, like WP:PROD or WP:AFD. This is the sort of claim that requires an opportunity for discussion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, this should be interesting[edit]

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Statement If you say anything about this here, please place comments under this heading. Yes, I know this isn't going to be a successful candidacy, but more of a Pyrrhic defeat. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Heh heh. I've never heard the phrase Pyrrhic defeat before.  :-)     But can one ask, what is the point of standing? Are you an issues-candidate that wants to bring awareness of the issues up? If so, what are the issues, as in specifically, what would you like the new crop of arbs to do/change/accomplish? Thanks, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I would say there are a million more pleasant things to do with your time than answer ACE questions. But, I'm impressed with everyone who gives it a go! Liz Read! Talk! 20:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Signpost inquiry[edit]

Hi, I've emailed you (via Commons) on an election-related matter. Tony (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

A reminder that if you wish to be included in the survey, we'll need to receive your response within 8–12 hours. Tony (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

See: User:Bobbybobbie/DJ Montay[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Reddogsix's deletion of DJ Montay. Thank you.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

survey response withdrawn?[edit]

Hello, from your comment at the User_talk:Mike_V#ACE2015 thread, I was under the impression that you did not wish your answers to be used? Or have you changed your mind, and decided to leave them in? Please see WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-11-18/Special_report which went live a short time ago, and also the thread at User_talk:NE_Ent concerning the broader matter. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

AEL FC[edit]

Hello.. I am the author of the page AEL FC. Be sure that i perfectly know better than you about the club and the current photo confirms with copyright rights. Please respect my work and do not restore again and again or i will block you as many other users did recently. Thanx. DON'T YOU HAVE SOMETHING MORE INTERESTING TO DO IN YOUR LIFE THAN DELETING OTHER PEOPLE'S WORK?

Orphaned non-free image File:Dimitrios Koukoulitsios - Dimitrios Mousiaris.jpg ⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dimitrios Koukoulitsios - Dimitrios Mousiaris.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Syed Mahmood Quadri[edit]

You wrote that Syed Mahmood Quadri "just survived AfD". Well... there was not a single !vote at the AfD. As for all practical reasons discussion did not happen (AfD stands for "articles for discussion") and the article still satisfied CSD, I tagged it accordingly. Maybe AfD could have been kept open a little longer, until other editors commented. I now see that it was a mistake on my part to AfD the page in the first place instead of CSD'in it - I just wanted to be kind. kashmiri TALK 18:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I think HW probably knows about the election... --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice: Speedy deletion Badrul Hisyam Manap[edit]

Yo have removed speedy deletion tags on this article, that was placed by different editors, TWICE, and you have done the same tactics, repeatedly, on other articles too. That's unacceptable by Wikipedia rules.
If you disagree with other editors, please explain your point in the articles' talk page; otherwise, it might be considered as an edit war on you part.
Also, some of your comments to other editors are not that great either. Keep in mind that everything in Wikipedia is recorded. Thank you.
Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. MarkYabloko 17:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Read WP:SPEEDY again. Any editor except the article creator can remove a speedy tag. For most speedy tags, including the one at issue here, a declined speedy should not be placed again; instead, standard deletion processes should be employed. And somebody like you, who just placed a phony warning on my page with no basis in fact, has no business complaining about statements by other editors. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


  • I am really not impressed with you work or your attitude The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk). You are constantly pushing your POV with complete disregard and disrespect to other editors. You are ignoring talk pages and consensus from other editors, and you are constantly reverting everybody; you accept nothing but your own edits, and you are hounding editors with half-obscenities and disparaging remarks. You are in clear violation of Wikipedia WP:PERSONAL and WP:NPOV, which are especially concerning, since you were given unjustly reviewer rights. I am few strokes away from filling a formal complaint with the administrates, to revert your reviewer rights among other complains, and believe me, I already have a whole list of editors who would support my claims and who are extremely unhappy with you. If I hear one more nasty word out of your mouth, any disparaging remarks toward me on any any of the edits that I do, any more of your personal remarks like "silly", "hasty", "phony", or if you try to again to deny the obvious abuse, or try to intimidate me with your Big Bad Wolfowitz attitude, then that's will be it. THIS ABUSE MOST STOP NOW. MarkYabloko 17:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • You've been editing substantively here for less than a month. It's evident your understanding of deletion policies and practices is grossly deficient. Earlier today, for example, you placed a vandalism tag on Dignity Test (since deleted over copyright issues), even though it clearly wasn't vandalism. You placed a PROD tag on Syed Mahmood Quadri, even though it plainly wasn't PROD-eligible, since it had just survived an AFD. Earlier this week, you placed a db-repost tag on Cybera even though it had never been through AFD. Your edit history shows a practice of targeting new editors' first efforts for deletion without giving them a decent opportunity to complete work on their first articles, and the term "hasty" is more than appropriate in that context. I am not the only experienced editor who has turned down your deletion requests, and you would do well to learn from the comments you are receiving, unwelcome as you may find them. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Anya Major[edit]

WP:UULP#6 doesn't exist. What did you mean to point to? I tried WP:BLP, but that has two numbers separated by a period. I don't care that the image is there or not, I just want to know why for future reference. DreamGuy (talk) 00:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the typo; the link is WP:NFC#UULP#6. The principle is that, to minimize the use of nonfree content, it's preferable to link to an article where the nonfree content is the central subject rather than reuse the nonfree content in multiple articles. Since we have a standalone content about the commercial, linked in the bio, the nonfree image shouldn't be repeated there. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. Ignorance fought. Thanks! DreamGuy (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Barry Dufour[edit]

Hi, I have a question. Not trying to pick a fight, just to understand. You removed the "BLP PROD" tag from Barry Dufour with the comment "article has sufficient referencing to defeat BLPPROD". But this article has no references at all, and it has never had any - at least not in the sense of anything that shows up in the {{Reflist}}. So I would be interested to understand what references your comment referred to.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Quick answer before I fall asleep. BLPPROD "requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.) The article contained an external link, to the subject's university profile. The university may not be Oxbridge or Ivy calibre, but it's a reputable institution which can be counted on to vet its professors (and editing a scholarly book for Cambridge University Press also signals significant credentials). So I think the article was not only sufficiently sourced to defeat the BLPPROD, but to support a reasonable assertion of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Thanks for that - makes sense to me! And I learned something, so it's a good day.--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Userbox:Music/Artist=Paloma Faith[edit]

Hi, Thanks for your input. Can you please explain how you know the image is non-free use? Thankyou. CandidLibraryEditors (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Because it's identified as a nonfree image on File:Can't Rely on You cover.png. More broadly, you need to establish that an image is free before placing i in userspace; if you don't know or can't tell, don't display it in userspace. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I will do as you have advised next time. CandidLibraryEditors (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Fornari[edit]

Why did you removed the template? Don`t you see the link that I give? It is clearly a copyvio and the text is taken from the International dictionary of psychoanalysis. --Ilikeliljon (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I compared the article with the entry on Franco Fornari in the International dictionary of psychoanalysis,[31] and although the article flow closely follows the encyclopaedia, it has been modified so much that it cannot be termed a copyvio. kashmiri TALK 12:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Kashmiri is pretty much on target. From WP:G12: For equivocal cases which do not meet speedy deletion criteria (such as where there is a dubious assertion of permission, where free-content edits overlie the infringement, or where there is only partial infringement or close paraphrasing), the article or the appropriate section should be blanked with {{subst:Copyvio}}, and the page should be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Please consult Wikipedia:Copyright violations for other instructions. Looking at the history, if there is a copyvio, it happened three years ago, when the article was translated from the it-wiki version (if that article was merely a translation of the source cited in the speedy nom.) This isn't a simple enough determination to justify speedy deletion, especially since there's been nontrivial intervening editing since 2012. If you think this is a translation of a translation, which would probably be a copyvio, if the translations were close enough, you should follow the non-speedy process described in WP:G12. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

pls join me[edit]

...Talk:Military history of Canada#Oka image again -- Moxy (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Case amendment request[edit]

Your amendment request has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Amendment request: Lightbreather (October 2015). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 15:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

"why do editors put A7 on pages like this?"[edit]

So instead of either dropping me a message or just tagging G3, you decided to put a snarky remark in the edit summary? Yes, I made a mistake and it should have been a G3, no need to be uncivil about it -- samtar whisper 20:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you try assuming good faith? I have seen similar bad tagging, over and over and over, with A7 stuck on flagrant attack pages and the most obvious of hoaxes. I hit about five of them in five minutes today, and I think this one was the worst. Wasn't this an article "about" somebody who was supposedly notable for walking on other planets? If you're tagging so rapidly you didn't notice that, you need to slow down. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Halime Sultan[edit]

This whole Story is a fiction, there is no any reliable source given that she was exist. There is no Valide (Queen Mother) who named Halime Sultan in the Ottoman Empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalanidil (talkcontribs) 02:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

That may well be so, but it's not blatant enough to justify speedy deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Removal of CSD tags and reasons given by you[edit]

  • Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, an article Kampfmaschine was created on 9 Dec 15 (Slovenian metal band formed in 2015) which was tagged for CSD by me. You removed the CSD tag here citing "remove speedy, article includes a credible claim of significance (formed by notable musician), a lower standard than notability". Did you check who that founding "notable musician" is? As per the article, the band was established in 2015 by Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski in Gimnazija Poljane. Following are some details for you;
  • Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski (1 Mar 1899 – 8 Mar 1972) was a German SS-Obergruppenführer (Army General) and not a musician. He died 43 years before the claimed band was formed.
  • Gimnazija Poljane is a grammar school in Ljubljana.
  • The article "Kampfmaschine" does not cite a single source.

Your contributions are appreciated and are welcome but please be cautious of your edits. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I happen to notice that your talkpage has multiple messages where several people have objected about removal of CSD and PROD. Just a friendly and unsolicited advice (on GF), slow down and be careful before you get reported by someone to admins. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
You placed an inaccurate speedy on an article. The Kampfmaschine article included apparently plausible claims of notability, but you tagged it as A7. Given the information you provided here (but not before), you should have placed a G3 (vandalism/hoax) tag on the article, or (better) a PROD tag, since determining the article to be a hoax requires some checking. It's not my responsibility to determine whether any other reason for deletion exists when removing an inaccurate speedy tag. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I placed an inaccurate notice???? Are you serious? Apart from the ANI discussion involving you, there are multiple editors who are complaining about your CSD / PROD removal issues. It is very much YOUR responsibility to determine and find facts before you remove any tags from an article; make no mistakes with that. Did you even bother to check what the page and the claims were all about? I don't think so. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'm serious, and rather than continuing to bitch about The Big Bad Wolfowitz, you would be better advised to note that the uninvolved editors who responded at ANI found nothing inappropriate about my tag removals. Your own speedy tagging, however, is too often inappropriate; here [32], for example, you tagged a sportsman who participated in the US national championship in his sport, which is clearly an assertion of notability, not merely significance; even worse, you tagged the article four minutes after the creator began writing it, without affording them a decent opportunity to complete their work. At Luke Carlson: A Living Legend, you missed the point that the article was an obvious attack page, which should have been tagged that way to ensure rapid administrator action. You need to be more careful in your tagging. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove speedy deletion notices from pages you created yourself, as you did at Michael J. Yaremchuk, you may be blocked from editing. It's not the first time that you remove AfD. Please note that you are not allowed to do this and it is up to an admin to decide on validity. kashmiri TALK 13:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC) Update: matter has been discussed at ANI and this notice is no longer needed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz prefers to leave it here for reference purposes. kashmiri TALK 17:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. kashmiri TALK 13:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Nairobi Sailcat[edit]

FYI Nairobi Sailcat is at AfD now... JMHamo (talk) 03:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Why are you so goddamn insistent on WP:BITE-ing a new editor who made a good faith effort to write an article and got tag-slammed before he had decent chance to finish working on their first article? The ferality of new page patrollers who would rather collect scalps than actually improve Wikipedia absolutely disgusts me. In terms of complying with WP:BEFORE, what sources did you check to reach your conclusion, since you presented not one shred of reasoned analysis? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • If you can find significant coverage in reliable sources that's independent, I will of course withdraw my nomination... I could not find anything, so it's at AfD. JMHamo (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Please stop making assumptions about me that aren't true. The simple fact is Nairobi Sailcat is non-notable and is at AfD because of a lack of reliable sources. Basic stuff. JMHamo (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
You haven't made a reasonable attempt to find them, and the article creator wasn't given a decent opportunity to work on the article. Period. You can shout and wave your hands all you want, but that's the bottom line. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
FYI - Now deleted at AfD JMHamo (talk) 10:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Yep. More editors were forced to waste their time on pointless discussion when outcome was predictable. Simply, WP:ARTICLEAGE is not a justification to keeping an article, contrary to what HW suggests. kashmiri TALK 12:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have to agree Kashmiri, but I've already been called a troll by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, so I doubt he will listen. Ah well... JMHamo (talk) 12:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

King Solomon's Ring (short story) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to TSR and Novelette
The Snow Women (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Hugo

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Gangsters (2017 film)[edit]

There is no evidence that this movie exists after googling. I think it's eligible for either G3 or A7. Thanks for replying. Ueutyi (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

G3 is fine (I prefer to use db-hoax, so it's clearer for the reviewing admin). But A7 is reserved for "real" subjects, and expressly excludes creative works. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Requesting to join a debate for James Stunt[edit]

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I'm requesting you to join this Afd discussion. Your comment is valuable to us. Please help us reach a consensus. Thanks -Khocon (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Kings in Darkness[edit]

Why, Hullabaloo, did you remove the four-line poem from the conclusion of the story? It is not an external poem, it is an integral part of the story, written by a character in the tale. it's a part of it and should remain there. Thanks. Robert Fraser 04:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It's quoted, therefore nonfree, and isn't essential to understand the plot summary. If it were just prose I might not have flagged it, but the standards for poetry (like song lyrics) are stricter. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 04:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Calumet National Bank Building[edit]

You saved another article of that user, can you see if you could salvage this mess? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Orinda Aquatics[edit]

I declined your speedy deletion request on Orinda Aquatics and I essentially nuked all edits to that article made in December. The article has existed since March 2007 and the negative content was only added in December. In the future, before tagging for CSD G10, make sure that the article is actually a newly created article. For existing articles, the negative content should simply be reverted. Thanks. Safiel (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Aria Giovanni[edit]

Can you please tell me why you restored the page without the informations I added with sources? Thanks. --Doctor01~itwiki (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Because, as I rather plainly stated in the edit summary, IMDB does not meet the standards for reliable sources as prescribed in WP:BLP, at least for biographical claims. There is an established consensus on this point. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) [edit]

I was wondering if you could reconsider your decline of the speedy nomination on S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer). You said, "the new text adds a significant RS (ESPN page) not mentioned in previous discussion", but the two sources (Cricinfo and Cricket Archive) have almost identical information. Moreover, I am certain that every regular editor of cricket pages is familiar with both these sources, and the deletion discussion was almost certainly conducted on the basis of checking both sources. (I know I did.) Moreover, the deletion arguments included "Google search only brings up trivial statistics pages", so it is clear that both sources were familiar with at least some (and probably all) editors. It strikes me as bad practice to allow the re-creation articles deleted at AfD merely because a trivial reference has been added. StAnselm (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

This is an attempt to twist a scenario in order to make a WP:POINT which is quite invalid. ESPNcricinfo and CricketArchive are independent of each other and are not always in accord. Their agreement about Perera is verification of each other's content. They are both reputable sources widely used on WP by CRIC project members. The original "one-line" stub about Perera did not contain inline citations and did not mention ESPNcricinfo at all while CricketArchive was merely included in the external links section. As such, it was arguably fair enough that it was deleted because notability was not properly established and an additional constraint arose in the AfD because no one thought to mention WP:NCRIC. The new version of Perera uses inline citations and provides extra information including linkages for the benefit of readers who are unfamiliar with Sri Lankan cricket. To say that the two sources are "trivial" is ludicrous. They are substantial sources. Your decision to refuse the speedy deletion was the correct one, especially as a significant new source confirms the information provided by the significant "old" source. Thanks very much. Jack | talk page 21:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Jack makes the point I would have made, perhaps more clearly han I might. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Emma Watson[edit]

I have reverted your edit to Emma Watson. My reasons: "college students dating classmates" usually are not encyclopedic—except when one's an actress of international acclaim and the other accompanies her to a major, highly publicized entertainment event. Her romance—and, more specifically, her breakup—with a notable athlete was widely covered; Watson herself addressed the inaccuracies of the article published by People, a reputable source that, as do they all, got something wrong. Therefore, in my view, this is not gossip-mongering, and certainly is not insignificant. Cheers! —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 19:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Thanks for retaining Munnad college. Prof. Manna (talk) 02:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Johnston McCulley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Guy Williams
Sshhh ... (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to George Barr

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings[edit]

Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Czolgolz/List of living Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients[edit]

This was one of my favorite articles that was deleted, and I'm just trying to preserve it. How do I make this right? Czolgolz (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

As I recall, the standard process is to either ask the deleting admin to userfy a copy for you or to place a request for userfication at WP:REFUND. Standard licensing requirements mean that the prior edit history must be preserved, so a simple cut-and-paste isn't allowed. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
It's now gone. Tell me, sir, do you create anything on Wikipedia, or simply destroy? Do you edit to spread knowledge, or are you merely a bureaucrat? Czolgolz (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Given that I told you, above, how to handle the matter properly, in a very simple way, and you ignored the advice, you really have no business complaining. Why aren't you interested in complying with Wikipedia's straightforward copyright/licensing requirements? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Jean Isherwood[edit]

I haven't been on Wikipedia for a while so this has just come to my attention. I notice that you deleted several images by that artist, which were being used by agreement with the artist' heir and executor, Jacqueline Dabron. The Japonica indicates the artist's great skill as a still life painter. The book cover relates directly to her last major project. An Illustration by Isherwood appears on the cover.

I would like the pictures restored.

Amandajm (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

"By arrangement with" and similar permissions which provide for Wikipedia-only use, or are otherwise limited, aren't acceptable. Please review WP:NFC and WP:NFCC. Unless the artist's representatives are willing to provide a CC-license allowing for both commercial reuse and modification, which likely wouldn't be prudent for them to do, standard NFCC limits preclude use of the array of images. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Not speedy?[edit]

Hello.

Why was it not speedy?

Regards.

HandsomeFella (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Because there's no indication this is noncontroversial. Try opening a discussion on the article talk page first. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
If you'd cared to look in the target article or the Baron Carrington article, you would have seen that this is uncontroversial. The last name is spelled with one 'r', and the title with two. Maybe the name Peter Carington, 6th Baron Carrington rings a bell?
But allright, I'll make it an RM instaed.
HandsomeFella (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: No it is non-controversial. Reversing redirects is done on a routine basis and does not require lengthy discussions, except in rare cases. Undoing your speedy removal. kashmiri TALK 18:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Arguing about whether something is noncontroversial is pretty much the paradigm of a self-defeating argument. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
That could of course be said, but if the argument that says it's controversial is founded on a mistake, then it's still uncontroversial. However, both of you, let the RM run its course. No need for a silly edit-war on a redirect. Big Bad W, if you object, do so in the RM discussion.
HandsomeFella (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
It's uncontroversial for editors knowledgeable of the subject, like HandsomeFella or JMHamo. Big Bad Wolfowitz seems only set on removing speedy nominations added by knowledgeable editors, often without having even faint understanding of the topics (abundant evidence on this page) - thus forcing many people to waste their time at AfD. Only the last week has seen several of his/her reverted speedies finally deleted after non-controversial AfD procedure. Sure it is WP:DISRUPTIVE apart from disparaging towards fellow editors who make decision on tagging, but what can you do? kashmiri TALK 23:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I suggest we all drop it, and let the RM run its course. HandsomeFella (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I've tried to let things drop, but kashmiri has been on a weird little wikijihad even since I declined a few of his speedies, most conspicuously his A7 nomination of a professor at Harvard Medical School [33], which began with improperly replacing the declined speedy [34], placing a false accusation that I was removing speedy tags from articles I had created on my talk page [35], filing a spurious and quickly rejected ANI complaint [36], filing an AFD that was soundly and unanimously rejected [37], and committing a WP:OUTING violation against a contributor to the article.[38][39] And over the last week or so, he's been jumping into, and trying to inflame, other discussions/disputes I've been involved with. Like this one. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

China Babu[edit]

You are correct that Rajeshbieee was only blocked recently, well after China Babu was created; but the block was for socking, and the sock-master is a different account, blocked well before. See here. Therefore, Rajeshbieee is evading a block, and all their creations are G5 eligible. I do not intend tagging them all, but I am tagging those decidedly not worth rescuing, per discussion at W:INB. Could you please self-revert this? Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Correction; they were indeed blocked much before the current creations, but their indefinite block was only this year. Considering that an admin asked folks to do the tagging, you can probably see why I made that mistake, not to mention that another admin accepted the same tag for a different creation by the same user, Vinod Kumar (VK). In any case, since replacing the tag would now be inappropriate on my part, I'm prodding both the articles on which you reverted me. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You're right in that it's a really messy situation. I've followed up at ANI. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have new messages at CatcherStorm's talk page.
Message added 03:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

CatcherStorm talk 03:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Carla Maria Puccini[edit]

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I, in my steward's and meta's checkuser's capacity, confirm that any substantial contributions on the page (which was created under a different name in order to "fool" my watchlist) has been made by BDA. --Vituzzu (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed[edit]

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

Disambiguation link notification for December 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Man Who Awoke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lawrence Manning (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Warning[edit]

Hey Mr. Why are you continuously wasting your time after my userboxes? You are not gonna decide what I'm gonna keep or delete in my userbox. You simply mind your own business and stop editing or reverting any edits on my userboxes. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 12:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

If you persist in adding nonfree images to userboxes, templates, or other pages where they are not allowed under WP:NFCC#9, you are likely to have your editing privileges suspended. Posting phony warnings on user talk pages only increases the likelihood that you will be sanctioned. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year[edit]

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png
McCutcheonNY1905.jpg



Happy New Year!

Warmest wishes for the new year from Eman235/talk 00:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Wolf![edit]

Charles R. Knight New Years's Card.jpg
Godt Nytaar! 1916.jpg
(Unknown artist, Norway, 1916)

Speedy Tags[edit]

I've just seen you've removed the speedy tag from a page (Latin's Next Top Model (cycle 1)). However, please note that both Latin America's Next Top Model and Latin's Next Top Model (cycle 2) have both been speedied. Could you possibly tell me how the linked article is not suitable for CSD A3? Also with another article you've removed the speedy tag for is Praveen Dixit which, granted, may not be A11 Material but could still be CSD A7. Would the latter article be A7? 81.152.228.83 (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Wolfowitz. Wikipedia logged me out half way through making that comment. It's me by the way. TF { Contribs } { Edit Quest! } 14:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, Both articles weren't A3, they were G3. Remarking Cycle 1 as G3 now. TF { Contribs } { Edit Quest! } 15:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • You need to take much more care in placing speedy deletion nominations, and should stop tagging articles moments after their creation, while new editors are still trying to write them. You tagged Praveen Dixit one minute after the article creator had written their first sentence. You tagged an article with rathr lengthy substantive content as A3. You tagged articles on actual, living people as db-madeup. The speedy deletion process is not a license to randomly tag substandard articles for deletion without reasonably and accurately evaluating their content. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ballantine441.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ballantine441.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Green Party of Mississippi, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Information icon Hello, I'm Me-123567-Me. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Green Party of Hawaii has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Green Party of Hawaii. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Green Party of Delaware. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kansas Green Party. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Green Party of Mississippi. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Green Party of Minnesota. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Arizona Green Party, you may be blocked from editing. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

ANI notification[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JMHamo (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alan Sullivan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lost world (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy tags[edit]

I noticed you've had some bother with people moaning about your tag removals. I too had a similar incident not long ago, and also received threats over it. So much for being bold eh? Adam9007 (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Samantha Ryan[edit]

How is it "multiple BLP" violations when the information is well sourced from reliable and valid sources?

Holanthony (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Have you ever read WP:BLP. Unverified accusations from a Twitter post are not "well sourced from reliable and valid sources". Neither are statements from a self-published book. Under you understand such basic points, you have no business editing BLPs. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

But how is "Off the Set: Porn Stars and Their Partners" by Paulie & Pauline a "self-published book"? You do understand it was released by Aural Pink Press, LLC., right? Not in any way is it associated to either Lockwood or Ryan. Also, how is Ryan's statement that she has retired from the industry an "unverified accusation"? Do not throw the baby out with the bathwater when reverting edits.Holanthony (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Stop playing games; this is borderline trolling. "Aural Pink Press" is owned/operated by Paulie and Pauline Photography. It publishes only books (probably just one) they author. That's a paradigm of the self-published source. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Please try and act civil and stop throwing out wanton accusations for effect. It is not uncommon for photographers to release their work through their own studios, you know this. The reasons being that the market for photography books is limited. Also, the very premise of the book are couples in a relationship, thus it is not making any "claims" about third parties. All claims are thus related to the source so to speak.

And you still haven't answered my question how you motivate removing Ryan's statement about her retirement.Holanthony (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Stop wasting my time. Go read the relevant policy/guideline pages, particularly WP:BLP and WP:SPS, carefully. Your failure to evidence awareness of these basic policies is hardly suggestive of good faith. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

How do you say that? Here's what WP:SPS says: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". Ryan's claim on twitter that she has retired is clearly acceptable under these rules. And please stop making implicit threats. I am reaching out to you on your page to discuss this matter in a due and proper manner.Holanthony (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

That's nice, but irrelevant. If anyone ever writes an article about "Paulie and Pauline", maybe you can use it as a source there. You've been editing since 2010, and somehow haven't figured out BLP basics yet? That's hardly convincing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Who said anything about Paulie and Pauline? The section I'm referring to is the statement Ryan made on her own Twitter page about herself. By BLP rules, such references are acceptable.Holanthony (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It's also about other people, and therefore can't be used like you want to. In general, you can't just parrot unverified accusations from self-published sources. Your talk page shoes a long-term pattern of willful blindness to BLP basics, and I'm not inclined to waste any more term on a tendentious editor who's plainly unwilling to learn. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm talking about one twitter post in particular. All she says in that one particular post is that she has retired. It does not mention anyone else and the statement is solely about her. How is that a "violation" of BLP? The very point I am discussing this with you also invalidates your argument of me "not wanting to learn". I see one thing in the guideline, and you make a different interpretation. Hardly extraordinary that I ask you to clarify on the matter, is it?Holanthony (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, you said earlier "If anyone ever writes an article about "Paulie and Pauline", maybe you can use it as a source there". Well, someone has, here: http://www.sfgate.com/living/article/Porn-Stars-In-Love-Violet-Blue-Off-The-Set-2541129.php#photo-2072919. Would you be prepared to accept that as a source? Can you please try to answer without resorting to rudeness?Holanthony (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course not. It doesn't mention Samantha Ryan. Go away. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Mohammad Ali Heydarpour[edit]

Your edit summary is mistaken. Although two refs were apparently added, one was to Wikipedia itself and neither of the two mention the subject of the article, as noted here. The BLPProd tag should therefore remain in place. BC108 (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

No, the summary was correct. You placed the bBLPPROD roughly one minute after a new user began writing. That's just plainly inappropriate. and very bad practice. When they'd finished writing their text, five minutes later, the article may have been badly referenced, but wasn't eligible for an initial BLPPROD. The surviving ref did mention the subject of the article, but the inexperienced editor didn't get the form right. Don't show so much enthusiasm for kicking inexperienced editors around. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Riley Reid[edit]

3RR. Take it to talk with Rebecca. Discuss it per MOS:IMAGES Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Drunkards walk ret.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Drunkards walk ret.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz reported by User:Morbidthoughts (Result: ). Thank you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Dowd & Shriver[edit]

I see you reverted my edits to the page of Matthew Dowd. If you feel the info doesn't belong please discuss on the talk page without the need to delete and revert sourced material Mk17b (talk) 02:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

No. WP:BLP states clearly that dubious material like this should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. The burden is on you, under BLP, to obtain consensus for its restoration, and you may not restore it without achieving consensus. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Problematic signature. Thank you. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 11:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of DPI Specialty Foods for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article DPI Specialty Foods is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DPI Specialty Foods until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bazj (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

C1N1K1LL discography[edit]

Are you sure it's not A7 or A9 eligible? It was originally tagged A9, but as it's not about a particular album and was more about the band itself, I changed it to A7. Otherwise I would have just removed the A9 tag. Adam9007 (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

A7 says "not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works"; I think that would exclude discographies from A7. A9 would be a more natural fit, but it is limited to individual works, as you noted. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Discogrpahy is indirectly about the band itself, so I thought A7 was a better fit. It's right along the border between A7, A9, and outside CSD's scope isn't it? It almost certainly fails WP:GNG, so I might PROD it. Adam9007 (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I think that's the best way to go. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:SNOW, basically — the band had already been deleted A7, and the album deleted A9 accordingly, so there was simply no real basis left for the discography article to be kept anymore. And bands don't all automatically get their discographies spun off as separate articles from the main one anyway — that only becomes appropriate if and when the band's article is long enough to warrant chunking out into multiple parts. So a separate discography article was never actually warranted, and should have been redirected back to the band article anyway — but with the band article a redlink, it then would have qualified for speedy under G8 too. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Neelix Redirectsy[edit]

Your recent removal of CSD tags is not helping the cleanup. Maybe you are not aware of this Legacypac (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive906#Proposal:_temporary_WP:IAR_speedy_delete_criterion

Stop your trolling. You know perfectly that absolutely nothing in the discussion you cite prevents, or even discourages, editors from objecting to such tags. If you had bothered to check the basis for my objection, you'd have seen it was accurate, but, as usual, you lash out at editors who disagree with you rather than even attempting to edit collaboratively. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

C1N1K1LL[edit]

The band's article was already deleted A7, and the only album with an article was already deleted A9 accordingly. And bands' discographies aren't all automatically entitled to get spun off as separate standalone articles from the band's main one anyway, but rather get that treatment only if and when the band's article is long and detailed enough to warrant having parts of it split off to other articles. So it really should have been converted back into a redirect to the band anyway, and not left to stand a separate article of its own — and if it had been handled the way it should have been, it would have become a G8 the moment the main article got deleted. So what would even be the point of still keeping the discography for six more days? The snowball principle is a valid one too. Bearcat (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

"The snowball clause is designed to prevent editors from getting tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions". The PROD process doesn't fall within that description. Speedy deletion criteria should be narrowly read, and this doesn't fall witin either A7 or A9. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Jack Williamson[edit]

Seeing how you screwed up my careful edits on creating a seperate bibliography page for these authors: Dave Wolverton, R.A. Salvatore, Robert Jordan, L.E. Modesitt, Jr. etc, etc, all my work here was just pastiched and deleted and without even consulting me for that matter, means to me that in my opinion as not so less distinguished editor like you is that you have been violating most professional and editor collegial sense, that brings me into contempt into trying to discuss further and bring up the matter further or even revert the pile of crap you brought back. These authors need bibliography pages. I am trying to conceive them. What you did is without any kind of reasonable justice and collegial relationship here. If you want revert them all, but there is no way, you and I will ever work, ever again in any kind of way here.

The Mad Hatter (talk)

NFCC Violation[edit]

Hi there. You removed a photo with this edit, citing an NFCC violaton. Could you explain? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a nonfree image with no article-specific use rationale, and we have multiple free images of the article subject at commons. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't able to locate one of the free images on the commons. Could you please add a link here to one of them? Or better yet, just replace the same image you removed in the article with one of the free ones you speak of. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
[40]. WP:NFCC is absolutely clear here; the nonfree movie poster can't be used as a general illustration in the bio article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I haven't been able to find that exact wording in Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Could you please point it out? Thanks again. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
"A file with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in will not be deleted. Instead, the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale". Also check out WP:NFC#UULP#9, which discusses analogous examples. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

"Unfree Media File" on my User Page.[edit]

@User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz Hi, why did you feel the need to remove the file from my page, without saying anything about it on my talk page? I don't really mind that you removed, but thanks for consulting me on the subject... — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhantomMeep (talkcontribs) 01:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that I Twinkled an article instead of a redirect. The commentary is not helpful though. Legacypac (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Megan Rain[edit]

Hi, yes I could use some help. Please give me any suggestions to make the article better. Anyway, she is still new and although no wins yet, she's been nominated for a lot and she also is moderately popular. When I get more information I'll make it a better article. Thank you!-Akhila3151996 (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

12 Finger Dan[edit]

I see you like to challenge PROD/CSD, which is of course fine, but why do you not send them to AfD after then? For example 12 Finger Dan, which you challenged, is at AfD now. Do we need to get consensus at AfD for every non-notable piece of puffery, just seems like a waste of time. JMHamo (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you do. Just slapping a just-not-notable tag on articles you find substandard is an abuse of the deletion process. WP:BEFORE is incorporated into basic deletion policy, and the speed and superficiality with which you're tagging articles makes it clear thaqt you're not complying. Also, your history of following my editing is strongly indicating improper wikihounding at least coming close to WP:HARASSMENT. So stop. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
That is your opinion, you will notice that the articles I take to AfD are deleted on 99% of occasions, so if I feel that an article should be deleted, I do not apologise for sending it to AfD for wider community consensus, rather than leave a non-notable article to rot. I guess we are never going to agree, so I will leave it at this... JMHamo (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
...and if you want me to back up my claim, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ ILJANO, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/12 Finger Dan and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urban Games (video game developer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kazunari Kakei and there are more; are articles which you challenged that will most probably be deleted once the AfD runs its course. JMHamo (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Hello, can you help me on wikipedia, because I am newbie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wade Jones (talkcontribs) 20:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Hello, because you broke my last change?Damon Felton (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Damon has been indeffed as a sock. Hopefully, this means that Elisha Cuthbert will quiet down for a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Non free content use on user pages ?[edit]

Hi @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Re removal of University of Queensland logo from my user page: Sure understand non free content but I thought it would be fair use of such. It succinctly identifies the institution and does not imply that I am representing that institution other than I am an ex-student of it. Happy to stand corrected but how is it not fair use ? Cheers. Aoziwe (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

It may be fair use under the legal definition, but WP:NFCC#9, which is policy, says that fair use images can only be used in articles, and specifically only in the article namespace. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 03:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Such is life I suppose - no biggy for me. Aoziwe (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CHRNPLIS19XX.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CHRNPLIS19XX.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Graphic Designer Barnstar Hires.png The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
Thanks for the excellent additions of the FFM covers onto the List of works by Sax Rohmer page: it makes the whole thing look a lot less bland than it did before! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Richard Jason Paris[edit]

Looks like most of your cleanup was undone...Naraht (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Nicky Scarfo & Phil Leonetti articles[edit]

Hey, I edited the Phil Leonetti biography and sourced it very well. The Nicky Scarfo article has no references whatsoever and was such a prominent figure in the American Mob, if you would like to delete some of it as you did with the other page then go for it and I'll try and found some valuable sources to back up the information. You'll find the whole Nicky Scarfo page is detailed from either a documentary about him or the Phil Leonetti YouTube videos

ActorBoss (talk) 08:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

2nd AFD for Cordelia Mendoza article[edit]

Since you participated in the first discussion in 2011 for afd of this article, the result of which was "keep," I am notifying you that another discussion is ensuing about the same article in case you would like to participate again. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

oops[edit]

I accidentally reverted you, but I put it back. It was a mis-click. HighInBC 16:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Johnny Sins deprod[edit]

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Johnny Sins, which you proposed for deletion. I am leaving this message here to notify you about it. I declined the prod on the basis that the reporting on the supposed space sex may be enough to satisfy WP:GNG. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to it. Instead, feel free to list the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! clpo13(talk) 23:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Consensus?[edit]

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You reinserted your bold edit to this template. I don't believe it has consensus, so I am requesting that you provide me a link to the discussion in which consensus was achieved to including A7 in the template:Uw-hasty, and specifically how that is supported by WP:A7. Thank you.- MrX 11:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Gina G singles discography[edit]

Well, that only took ten months. This stuff isn't patrolled anymore. Pretty much unenforced. You might want to tag the covers as orphaned now. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

PROMO[edit]

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You apparently interpret db-promo as requiring blatantly non-neutral language. In my view the existence of an article about some obscure product or idea or institution is the product of promotionalism - somebody wants to boost the visibility of X so they create a WP article about it. Please consider that putting Good Shepherd Schools through AfD is a waste of the community's time and will be a SNOW close. I am unhappy that you prevented an admin from reviewing Gary Jones (nurse)‎ but that one, I will acknowledge, is more marginal. But Good Shepherd Schools is a waste of an AFD. Jytdog (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Your interpretation of db-promo is unsupported by consensus, and amount to an end run around A7 requirements. WP:G11 says clearly, unmistakeably, and unambiguously that Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. Please to conform to this principle when tagging articles in the future. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Not only that, but it had also been previously tagged g11, but it was declined and fixed, so it wasn't CSD eligible anyway. HW is right here. Adam9007 (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Karelasyon episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Max Collins (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Accusation of falsified credentials[edit]

Hi HW,

I trust you're fine. I want to let you know that I forwarded my credentials and employment document to the OTRS team. Wikigyt@lk to M£ 15:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Picture Objection-Bobbie Billard[edit]

These are direct from the source Bobbi Billard. My Client and Friend. These picture's are not of my choosing.She has pointed out photo's on Wikipedia that are much worse and do reference how I may want to squeeze her hawking hooters is down right disrespectful. I am trying to do a job I was hired (Recommendation) No Monetary compensation to do. The info and Photo's are from a reliable Source. Herself. Please feel free to contact me or her.. (Me:sprtcs40@yahoo.com or Jibbet1@gmail.com) Or Bobbie Billard:bobbi@bobbibillard.com

Thank you for your cooperation and assistance.

Jim Engel aka:Spart Special Project Art

Note[edit]

HW, I politely ask that you be a bit less inappropriate in your edit summaries. Also, bear in mind that not everyone who claims to represent a celebrity, does represent that celebrity. DS (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology arbitration case opened[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 22, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The message was sent using the case's MassMessage list. Unless you are a party, you may remove your name from the list to stop receiving notifications regarding the case.

Stoya[edit]

Passes WP:PORNBIO? Support AfD or against? Valoem talk contrib 21:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of a PORNBIO claim, appears to pass the GNG due to coverage of her sexual abuse allegations against James Deen. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Wait, is there a reason for applying WP:UNDUE to her allegations of rape? Nothing has been proven and while I believe other allegations have some merit, hers seems to be questionable to included without background. She may pass WP:PORNBIO for her Best New Starlet award, but I think Rachel Roxxx was deleted, has also won awards and received mainstream coverage. Valoem talk contrib 21:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
As the primary complainant I can't see that undue will have much impact. Its unlikely that an AFD would reach a consensus to delete due to the award. WRT Rachel Roxxx - it appears the consensus this time last year was that she didn't pass the GNG - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rachel_Roxxx_(3rd_nomination). Awards that are scene related no longer count and according to the AFD, there were no wins at the time of deletion. Are we discussing the same performer? Spartaz Humbug! 09:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Dellusion Records‎[edit]

Hi, if you checked the note in my edit summary when I reverted Dellusion Records‎, there's nothing for the author to add. There is no company. It's a YouTube page that was created in November 2015, there's no website, no roster of artists, etc. (I checked before I Speedied it.) It's someone posting EDM videos and claiming to be a label, the same is true of "Illusion Studios" and "DeKay Studios," just a few traks on sites like SoundCloud with no signed artists, actual business, etc. IMO it warrants a Speedy, but if an admin declines it I'll take it to AfD. Either way it doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY and there's nothing for them to add to change it. I'd appreciate it if you'd let an admin review the speedy. JamesG5 (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Just PROD it if you must. There's no good reason not to allow the article creator a decent chance to write up a new article without being tag-bombed and driven away. The first speedy was added to the article before the creator had a real opportunity to finish their work. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Edit: Correction to above, I see they've linked their website (which doesn't show up on search & is not linked from their YouTube). It has a bare "about us" and nothing which changes the lack of significance. The speedy contestantation is from the owner of the label, which makes it clear there're WP:COI and WP:PROMO issues with the page, so speedy regardless. The creator was editing the page for some time after I placed the Speedy and added nothing that would show otherwise. JamesG5 (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Per your request, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dellusion_Records JamesG5 (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Biomass preprocessing[edit]

FYI, I've prodded this new essay after you removed the speedy tag. I agree with you that the speedying was patent nonsense, but I think the article itself should better be rewritten from scratch. De728631 (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Caine[edit]

I concur with your edit in the Caine Mutiny article. Since you seem acquainted with such things, perhaps you could evaluate the copyright status of the two Queeg files being discussed here. These are purported trailer images but that is not what my conclusion from examination thereof. Coretheapple (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Images Queeg A and Queeg B are PD under the provisions of US Copyright law (Title 17 USC) which establishes that any images first published in pre-1978 uncopyrighted movie trailers are in the Public Domain irrespective of where they may subsequently be published or appear. This has been the accepted policy and basis for their use in WP movie articles by the by WikiProject-Film in 2007. (See WikiProject-Film Talk Archive #12 (§10): "Free Images for Films" (April, 2007) and further explantion HERE.) The specific PD frames from which these two images are derived are from an uncopyrighted 1954 Caine Mutiny trailer as can clearly be seen HERE for "Queeg A" and HERE for "Queeg B". Centpacrr (talk) 08:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Sara Ali Khan[edit]

Just a courtesy notice that I created a deletion discussion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Ali Khan since you felt the Speedy was unwarranted. Thought you might care to weigh in. JamesG5 (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Mher Khachatryan[edit]

I misread the original AFD for Mher Khachatryan and thought it said he was a actor also so that was why I put it up, sorry about that! Wgolf (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:SKCRIT[edit]

I'm wondering why you excluded the following clause from the policy "no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion as an outcome of the discussion." There were clearly delete votes and two redirect votes. Maybe this is best left to an administrator and not suitable for NAC? Jolly Ω Janner 23:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The delete !vote wasn't there when I started the close; this may be an edit conflict problem. "Redirect" !votes aren't delete !votes. Let's see if there are substantive objections, because, frankly, the trend was overwhelming, particularly since the nom came out and said they were nominating it because they weren't getting their way in a content discussion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
If the deletion vote wasn't there, then that is fair enough. I admit, I can't see it going anywhere at this time. Jolly Ω Janner 02:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Fanindra Deb Institution. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Please let an admin review it. Musa Talk  14:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Musa Raza: If he didn't create the page, he's perfectly entitled to remove speedy tags. Adam9007 (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
@Adam9007: Only if the removal of said tag is legitimate, i.e. the page was wrongly tagged, or has been improved such that it no longer meets the CSD. — Smjg (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

You removed a speedy deletion tag on Roots: A Novel by Rahul Bhatt with this comment: "inaccurate, incompetent, abusively hasty speedy tagging". Would you care to explain how the tag was "inaccurate" or "incompetent"? — Smjg (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Because the content provided sufficient context, making the db-context tag plainly inapplicable. Given that the editor who placed the tag has been working in speedy deletion only for a few hours, and is making ghastly inaccurate tags like the one here, Talk:Moinul_Islam_Neloi, it's obviously reasonable to note their lack of competence. You would do well to devote your attention to trying to deter WP:BITE violations which drive away new users attempting to edit reasonably if imperfectly rather than hassling those of us who try to support new users. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Our Lady of Victories Church, Somwarpet[edit]

See Our Lady of Victories Church, Somwarpet after C/E.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Charisma Carpenter[edit]

What do you mean in-universe? She spends 11 episodes of the fourth season of Angel playing Jasmine, not Cordelia. --Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · count) Iay amay Magineiay Izardway. 17:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Just what I said. A plot point is not an actual role. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
But she is playing a different character - it's established that through those 11 episodes, it is Jasmine, not Cordelia. If that's the case, then Amy Acker should only be described as portraying Fred and not Illyia. --Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · count) Iay amay Magineiay Izardway. 12:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Amber Rayne shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
Thank you for all you do on Wikipedia Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Danielle Marcot (Shining Time Station)[edit]

I was about to do a BLP prod for Danielle Marcot (Shining Time Station), not sure why I did DB-person, anyway upon looking around on Wikipedia for the name Danielle Marcot, it seems that goes as a redirect to that show, so would this become a redirect also? (that is if this survives the BLP prod) Wgolf (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a good call, unless the added sourcing would justify a standalone. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedy abuse[edit]

RE: Corpus Christi Fire Department -- Sorry, I admit, sometimes I am abusive and put speedy deletion tags on new articles with no references. In the future, I will use the proposed deletion tag. Thank you for correcting me. CookieMonster755 (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Startling Stories gallery[edit]

Hi -- this edit of yours, eliminating the gallery of non-free images, is reasonable, but I think a defense of the images can be made. You removed them a year ago and I replaced them after starting a discussion on the talk page. Can you comment there? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

disruptive editing[edit]

Information icon Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Aaliyah, did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.Mulaj (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Mulaj

I am completely unimpressed when someone with a handful of edits contests an edit of mine by reverting without a meaningful edit summary and placing a completely unfounded, similarly unexplained warning template on my talk page. Telling me to "familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines", even though I have been editing here since 2006 and have roughly 200 times as many edits as you do, makes it impossible for me (or any reasonable user, I suspect) to take you seriously, and edit summaries where you without provocation call another editor "dumbass" [41] or "you ignorant fool" [42] hardly suggest an interest in rational discussion. I see no reason to give your opinions any weight right now. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hotel notability to be discussed centrally, at one AFD i hope[edit]

Hi, I haven't looked into this to check anything, but it is asserted by another editor at Talk:Renaissance Barcelona Fira Hotel that you have nominated a bunch of hotels for speedy deletion. I arrive at the topic area from coming across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hotel Barcelona Princess. That seems like a good forum to discuss notability standards.

Towards participating in the AFD, I began browsing about other Barcelona hotels and came across the speedy. If there are other speedy deletions out there could you possibly please cancel them, and contribute at the AFD instead? Also I suggest you don't open other AFDs, but rather mention the other marginal examples at the existing AFD. Just hoping for a centralized discussion that would really settle the area. If there is a centralized discussion somewhere, let me know, and let the AFD participants at the Hotel Barcelona Princess AFD know, too.

Thanks, --doncram 20:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

No. Notability standards for businesses are clear, and hotels are businesses. The fact that hotels do business in buildings hardly distinguishes them from most other businesses. If you want to argue that hotels require some sort of special treatment that other businesses don't enjoy, the onus is on you to articulate a coherent, rational argument to that effect. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand your not wanting to go along with a polite request to discuss a bunch of separate items in one centralized discussion. Where coherent, rational arguments can be considered. But okay. I will oppose the speedy deletion requests that I can find in your edit history. --doncram 21:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Because you haven't produced a relevant argument. If you want to be disruptive, feel free, but if you don't produced a policy- or guideline-based argument as to how the businesses involved are significant I don't see any reason to treat such actions as WP:POINTY disruption. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Is it impossible to give a better explanation than "rv"? --SamWinchester000 (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

You ignored the first explanation, which isn't my problem. Given the personal insults you throw in my direction in edit summaries, you don't even deserve than much of an explanation. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I only asked why you need to edit in every article I have edited in the last houre. Did you go through all my edits in order to ensure that I don't destroy too much, or how do I have to understand that. Btw, it must be terrible when showing other users that articles are missing is forbidden in the english wikipedia because of cosmetic (red) reasons. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Go away. Don't come back until you've reviewed the various extensive discussions on inserting non-notable/insignificant promotional/vendor awards into porn articles, from last year. When you edit against consensus and insult editors who edit in accordance with consensus, you're going to get reverted. It's that simple. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
"Spamery" is of course a very good, careful and insultless explanation to point on past discussions. I thought that users should be nice and sympathatic to newbies (and in this case I am one). I won't find any discussions in dusty corners on my own, but there is the possibility to give links in this project. I only started to get angry when you stated your perfectly understandable explanations. Could you now please explain to me what is your problem with "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject."?--84.163.8.233 (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Scalhotrod[edit]

Just wanted to direct you to User:Scalhotrod/UserSandbox which contains the full list of drafts and the like. Some with work are usable but the most are probably best blanked or reviewed for deletion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

RE:Extremely inappropriate speedy tagging.[edit]

Hello, I apologize for this situation and inform me hither policies that are different from Wikipedia in Spanish (my house wiki). I promise not happen again. Regards and Thanks. --Alvaro Molina.png Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 16:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Complex magazine is spam?[edit]

Please explain how the well recognized fashion magazine Complex is "spam citing itself", as you asserted in this edit. I see you have been doing that for other references to the same magazine in other articles, and such disruptive activity is surprising from an otherwise constructive editor. Please help me understand your reasoning — and I advise you to cease this activity until you do. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I have yet to see an example of a genuinely reliable source treating Complex's barrage of clickbait lists as in any way noteworthy. I don't believe I've ever seen a Complex list cited on Wikipedia to a secondary source, only to the Complex site itself. I've spotted SPAs adding cites to such lists in bulk, and seen them added by obvious publicists. My conclusion has been that the overwhelming majority of the cites are added for promotional purposes, usually to drive traffic to the Complex site. It cleaned up its act a bit recently to facilitate its recent sale to a major publisher, but I have yet to see anyone take its editorial content, especially those wretched lists, terribly seriously, and there are way too many examples of redundant cites, alongside far more reliable sources, that seem clearly intended as promotional. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Bread's Crumbs Speedy[edit]

This is the second time this has come up in as many weeks. The article is about a YouTube video. Youtube is not film. Youtube videos are eligible for A7 as web content. TimothyJosephWood 18:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The fact that something is available on the web doesn't automatically make it "web content". The article asserts it's a film. You don't provide any sources for the claim that it's only available on youtube. A perfect PROD candidate, since the speedy claim requires more analysis and discussion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
How...do you provide sources substantiating that something is only available on youtube? There are no sources beside youtube. That's the point. TimothyJosephWood 21:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
And that's why the speedy was inappropriate . . . The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
... I don't mean to wiki lawyer, but it does seem to qualify under the "letter of the law". I'm not really arguing the point so much as I am befuddled by this seeming contradiction. Seems like a waste of a predetermined AfD. TimothyJosephWood 23:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Consider the analogy to the "obvious hoax" standard: there are articles where it's easy to establish that it's a hoax, but if it's not obvious on the face of the article, PROD or AFD is required. PRODding this would have been easy enough. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Tyler Knight[edit]

I de-prodded Tyler Knight because he won an award in 2009 that might be notable significant and well-known. Since the standards on which awards are good enough for WP:PORNBIO are so nebulous, I have no idea if that win proves notability and I have no objection if you want to take this article to AFD. clpo13(talk) 19:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The PORNBIO standard isn't "notable", it's "well-known" and "significant". Merely notable was removed as a criterion years ago. The FPA isn't generally viewed as significant and has never been the basis for an AFD keep; even editors who generally oppose porn pereformer deletions have said things like " I've also yet to see any evidence offered that the Feminist Porn Awards qualify as 'a well-known and significant industry award'".(Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruby Day, where a winner of the award was deleted). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at WT:BIO about coming up with some sort of list of what consensus deems acceptable for criterion #1 of PORNBIO. clpo13(talk) 20:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Anti-transsexualism feminists[edit]

I've nominated the category "Anti-transsexualism feminists" for renaming or deletion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_1#NEW_NOMINATIONS I've only found one use of the phrase as a category of feminists outside of Wikipedia.--Nowa (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I've nominated the category for speedy deletion; it's a disparaging categorization that's incompatible with BLP sandards, and removed it from every article where the subject hasn't self-identified -- which is to say, all of them -- per consensus practice regarding categories. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Please. Stop Wikipedia:Edit warring with me. Come Talk in Category talk:Anti-transsexualism feminists. After That do what you want. P. Pajouhesh (talk) 11:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Obvious BLP violations are removed without discussion and are exempt from edit warring restrictions. At this point, multiple users oppose the existence of the category and only you support it. You need to stop. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
This Category is not BLP violations. I'm not mad or new comer. It's an accusation. If you have something to say, say it in Category talk:Anti-transsexualism feminists. Don't Edit war with me. P. Pajouhesh (talk) 12:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Category now deleted. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
P. Pajouhesh, please see Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Definitions and scope's section on Sensitive categories. Liz Read! Talk! 12:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you![edit]

Dobos cake (Gerbeaud Confectionery Budapest Hungary).jpg 7&6=thirteen () has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen () 02:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Matt Farah[edit]

I was told that Youtube and IMDB should never be used as refs and only el's, hence why they were removed. Wgolf (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

They are often quite lousy and unsuitable for references, but there is no absolute bar at this time. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Well its not as bad as some articles I've seen where people put up a BLP prod that moment (I saw one go up for a NFL player within 2 seconds that had no sources yet and were added 2 minutes later even!) The only sources I really am iffy about are ones like Facebook, Twitter, ect. aka social networks. Wgolf (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

G11[edit]

Could you have another look at this edit? This was not tagged A7 but G11. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Your reverting of Kevin Sorbo[edit]

I gave a description on the Talk-page, why I think, my edit was appropriate. The commercial was a important first step of his careerer, the Kull-movie was not.--93.111.43.22 (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Apology[edit]

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, my actions the other day were out of line and I would like to apologize for the message I left you - I acted in the heat of the moment and thoroughly regret it -- samtar talk or stalk 17:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, apology accepted. No worries. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back pie![edit]

A very beautiful Nectarine Pie.jpg WELCOME BACK!
  • Hi, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I noticed the comment you appended to your name in an AFD I had edited. Administrators are overworked volunteers. I think of them in a category with citizens who participate in local government, and church vestry members they do a lot of hard work and get a lot of grief. But there is no quesiton that, too often, they pay too much heed to aggressive complaints made by intensely partisan but highly skilled wiki-lawyers. Hang in there.13:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Prof. Dr. Amir Qayyum[edit]

The intro sums up all his experience, states that he is "Self motivated and ambitious", is a "Multi-cultural personality with understanding of many languages", has "leadership skills to effectively lead a team", is a "creative and visionary thought leader", etc. Besides that introductory paragraph, the article just is a list of his publications that looks like it is copied from his CV. I really think this is spam and would appreciate if you could have another look at this. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

  • It just was deleted fro another reason, so the point is moot now. Just for the record, I also just found that it was literally copied from this person's own university page, so it also was a copyvio. Cheers! --Randykitty (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Airbiquity[edit]

Hi, the Airbiquity article was not accepted at AFC, it was simply moved to mainspace by the author in spite of multiple declines by AFC reviewers. If it really was accepted at AFC the AFC header would have been removed and the Talk page would contain at least the AFC WikiProject banner. The G11 speedy deletion criteria do not in any way refer to AFC processes anyway, so please re-evaluate the article in terms of the actual G11 criteria. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The article was created by User:TarynAdams and accepted by User:Bugmenn[43]. If AFC reviewers disagree about the significance of the subject, then it's generally outside the speedy range and calls for standard deletion process. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Bugmenn is not an AFC reviewer and as I have already explained if it was really Accepted it would not still have had the AFC header and there would have been at least the AFC banner on the talk page. The edit history clearly shows that it was a plain move and not an AFC accept procedure. So I will now simply move it back to Draft-space because the move to mainspace was nt legitimate in the first place. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
AFC project practices/preferences aren't binding policy/guidelines. It's disputed enough to fall outside the speedy process. There are all sorts of legitimate ways to address the issues involved. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Racine carrée[edit]

Hello. It is French title so it should be under the title "Racine carrée". Eurohunter (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

You may be right, but that's a content discussion, not a matter for speedy deletion. Removing the redirect wouldn't move the article to your preferred title anyway. You should start a discussion on the article talk page. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Gustav Rehberger.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Gustav Rehberger.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Civility warning[edit]

I've been guilty of incivility as well (to preempt any pot/kettle defense you might want to use), but this series of summaries is pretty damn inexcusable, and I know you've been called on this before. Regardless of where you stand on waiting periods for speedy tags (and, as far as I know, there is no consensus requiring them), the language and accusations you deployed here are completely unacceptable. Whatever rules you think you're nobly defending, be aware that you can find your editing privileges curtailed for incivility alone; and short of that, you're hurting the community every time you escalate like this. —swpbT 14:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Can your bullshit. WP:BITE is guideline, and actively hunting for pages just created by new and inexperienced users and tag-bombing them before the article creator has a decent opportunity to even finish their first draft violates it. It is plainly abusive, and does far more harm to the community than hurting the overly tender feelings of the abusive editors who prefer to drive new editors away. You might note that the editor whose treatment you complained of lied in a relevant edit summary (he deletion tag-bombed a new article six minutes after the first edit). You might also note that he rather gratuitously and officious slammed an article subject, a respected academic, for making minor corrections/updates to his biography and removed a link to the youtube page where the article subject posted various presentations related to his academic work. Actually providing links to such educational material, of course, is far less suitable for an encyclopedia than, say, links to a celebrity's twitter feed, I guess. There may be a strong clique here that believes that accurately characterizing misbehaviour by its members is worse than the misbehaviour itself, but I'm not part of that clique and have no respect for its members and advocates. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Well that's certainly not the response I was hoping to see. Maybe you need a concrete example of how your tone is counterproductive: the tone of your reply above has convinced me to start watching you closely, with an eye toward starting an AN/I if the problem does not improve; I don't think it would be hard to find support for an action. Keep in mind that your tone directly precipitated that; I hadn't been planning on any follow up before your reply. —swpbT 15:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
He also forgot that the first edit was ~30 mins before my "delete bombing". Clubjustin (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
"He" forgot nothing; you're misrepresenting the history. The article was created at 10:50. You tagged it at 10:56. That's not 30 minutes, no matter how many times you say it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Burns twins[edit]

Best known for playing one role and then retiring is not really a credible claim of significance. WP:NACTOR says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", my emphasis on multiple. While the character pair they portrayed had a significant effect on pop culture, the actresses themselves only played one other minor role and then retired. Opencooper (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

You said it yourself. Playing a character who "had a significant effect on pop culture" is a credible claim of significance. And a quick check of available sources shows examples of coverage over 30 years. That's plainly enought to defeat an ill-advised A7 nomination. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Not really. Notability is not inherited. There have been countless actors who have played notable Shakespeare characters, but that does not make the actors themselves notable. And okay, mind sharing those before I take it to AFD? Because I wasn't able to find anything of significance. Opencooper (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
You simply wrong, because it was the specific portrayal by the performers involved here that had the significant impact on popular culture. That's a claim of significance under NACTOR#3. You might begin by looking at the referenced coverage in the articles, which is the absolute minimum required by WP:BEFORE, rather than expecting me to do the work you're supposed to do when making a deletion proposal. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I did do the BEFORE which is why I said I was planning to take it to AFD when I couldn't find anything of significance. Read my comment again. The reason I asked you was in case I missed anything, not because I'm expecting you to do my dirty work. Opencooper (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Burns‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MarnetteD|Talk 20:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

See my comment on your talk page. I note you decline toprovide any policy support for your removal of my comments from a discussion. Insisting that comments caught up in an edit conflict before a discussion is closed may not be restored is hardly consistent with practice, and your responses, particularly the edit summary "Horse hockey" are neither civil nor consistent with WP:AGF. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
HW - I don't mean to "poke my nose in here" but Marnette is right - If you commented 5 mins after the close then fair enough but you've commented a whole 20 minutes AFTER the close ..... sorry but no one gets to !vote once an AFD's closed and yes unfortunately that includes you, If you are unhappy then drag me to 3rrno however that would probably be unwise,
My best advice would be for you to kindly move and forget the AFD,
Thanks & Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk 20:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
No, Marnette is wrong, and so are you. As I commented at their talk page, my comment was posted well before the close, and caught up in a confict with Ponyo's comment. There's no justification for removing a comment in those circumstances, and it's certainly not policy. My phone rang, I clicked "save page" and answered it, had to deal with some urgent family business, and didn't immediately see the edit conflict. So please restore my comment, which I do intend to refer to in a related discussion, and simplify that one. Also note that Manette removed the relevant comment from their talk page with a rude edit summary. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry but Davey and Marnette are correct. The post was way after the closure, if your phone interrupted you then your phone made you miss the debate. This is not personal, we close discussions and we stop allowing comments at that point. HighInBC 21:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Once again, the comment was posted well before the close. It was caught up in an edit conflict. Could you point me to any policy or guideline that says that such a comment can't be reinstated? I've never seen this before, but I have seen the contrary, even for comments that were actually post-close. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
No, you might have intended to post before the closure, however you posted after. I get that you tried to before, but you did not succeed. It says right in the close template "Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review)". HighInBC 21:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Once again, where is the policy dictating this outcome? As Davey accurately points out, it's common practice to allow comments caught up in conflict with the close to be reinstated. I've been in similar circumstances a few times, myself, and no one has ever objected before. Wikipedia is not a bureaucrfacy, IAR, etc, especially since nobody seems able to point to the governing policy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
What is the wording of the closure template not clear enough for you? Listen when you are going down the road and everyone is driving right at you, it is probably you who are in the wrong lane. If you want to challenge the closure you can go to WP:DRV, if you want to refer to your comment in a later discussion the diff is still there. HighInBC 21:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
No, and that's my point. Neither policy nor practice supports the absolutist position, and I've seen my position supported in past situations like this (though admittedly it's going to be hard for me to find the relevant diffs. Since I don't want the closure reversed, DRV is obviously not appropriate. I want the issues, which I raised in a timely fashion, to be visible. Nobody has provided a reason not to. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." And airing the relevant issues certainly improves the discussion, and there's no better place. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay it is clear we are not going to agree on this. IAR is not license to ignore what other editors are telling you, nor will it protect you from an edit warring block. If you like you can can go to ANI and complain about the removal of your comment, but I think you will just be told again what you are being told here. Your comment is in the history and you can link to it if you want. However you may not restore your comment in the closed deletion discussion. Sorry you think this is unfair, but closed means closed for everyone. HighInBC 21:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

You know, almost every day I see someone appending a comment to a closed section at ANI or some other noticeboard. As Davey pointed out, editors have routinely been allowed to add edit conflicted comments first posted shoretly after the actual close of a deletion discussion. Closed doesn't mean closed for everyone, although it now seems in practice that it may mean "for everyone named Wolfowitz". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I didn't even know I was supposed to think of you differently than others. If there is some conspiracy against you I was not included. HighInBC 22:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I said they're generally allowed if it's around 5 minutes (and even then some admins can be funny over it), The point is even if you edit conflicted a second after the close you didn't then recheck ... You instead checked around 20 minutes after, The "for everyone named Wolfowitz" isn't the case at all - You could be Jimbo or even an Arbcom member - It'd still be declined regardless, Anyway what's done's done - Best we all just move on, Thanks & Happy editing. –Davey2010Talk 23:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Hullaballoo Wolfowitz posting personal attacks in edit summaries. Thank you. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Decline of Speedy Deletion[edit]

Greetings Hullaballoo Wolfowitz . I created those article and I can nominate them for speedy deletion as I see fit. The songs are not notable. I created those articles years ago when I didn't know about WP:NSONG. Since you reverted the speedy deletion tags I added, I will either redirect those articles to its parent article or nominate them for deletion through AFd. Those articles are not notable and they need to be deleted.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 16:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

You can nominate them, but you don't WP:OWN them. Repeated discussion and consensus has established that deletion under G7 is discretionary, not a privilege held by the author. Deletion of an article which has existed for several years and has many incoming links is almost always declined. Redirection is a standard editorial choice and may be appropriate, but it remains subject to discussion and consensus, not the original author's fiat. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I never said I own them. I nominated those articles for speedy deletion and another user did the right thing by redirecting them. You, on the other hand, decided to vote speed keep despite the songs not being discussed in reliable sources. I can bet you probably didn't even do a Google search before voting.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 20:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Hullaballoo, I agree. If you looked up the band I nominated, you wouldn't have removed the tag. Please, do a Google search before rving tags. As a long time editor, you should know this. Clubjustin (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Utter nonsense. Whatever the results of your Google search, and your confidence level in your own infallibility, there's no justification for your abusing a new editor who was making a good faith effort to write their first article. Nor, for that matter, was their any justification for your condescending, wholly-uncalled-for templating of a very-well-regarded academic who did nothing inappropriate, just made minor corrections to a recently posted bio of himself. And, if you had actually looked at the articles mentioned above, you would have seen that they were generally ineligible for G7. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Elizabeth Trevannion[edit]

Greetings. What do you mean by incoming link?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. Another editor got my point.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
No, it looks more like they got mine. An "incoming link" refers to a page linked to the redirect; removing a redirect which has incoming links damages Wikipedia's utility for its readers by needlessly making navigation to related pages more difficult. In this case, it looks like the admin changed all the incoming links to point to the ultimate target before deleting, which resolves the problem. It's something you should have done before nominating. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
But there were no incoming links. That's why I cited it redirect as an unused redirect.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
When I removed the tag, there was at least one. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

ANI Closure[edit]

Hello, I'm letting you know that I have closed the discussion at ANI. The community has established consensus to place you on an interaction ban with SimonTrew. Please note that additional uncivil comments directed towards any editor may result in a block. Best regards, Mike VTalk 13:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Ring-necked snake lifespan[edit]

You are right, it's not A3, but it's not a Wikipedia page, too, so I'm not sure it should be preserved and discussed. The next step is How manay days has a week 7.Xx236 (talk) 06:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Ross Campbell (vocal coach)[edit]

I am informing previous editors of this article that it is being discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross Campbell (vocal coach). Voceditenore (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey[edit]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

  • Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Jewel De'Nyle[edit]

You've dealt with editors trying to "out" this porn actress' name before. It's happening again. I've reverted twice, posted to the BLP Notice board and tried to engage the editor on the editor's talk page, all to no avail. Would you please look through the recent edits to this article. I'm at my wit's end. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of The Howard Stern Show staff, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page G4 (TV channel) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

ANI-notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding reason for discussion. The thread is Incidents#User_Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz.The discussion is about the topic User Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Thank you.Holanthony (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Tom Mendelsohn[edit]

Hi there – thank you for your message. I don't think I am engaged in an edit war as I only made one request for deletion and I do not reverse any of the previous edits. I opened a thread on the Biographies Noteboard [[44]] as I felt the page was being used to progress an agenda and that any edits would be fruitless. Having viewed the page's edit history, though, I can totally see why you messaged me given what everyone else is up to, and I appreciate your thorough oversight of the entry. Best, SH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staggeredhermit (talkcontribs) 14:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I simply screwed up; that notice was supposed to go on another editor's talk page. Very sorry about that. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Edits to Austin Stowell[edit]

I agree with other's notes on this talk page that many your edits are overly broad. I am restoring the deleted content. It is well sourced, relevant, and of interest. Bangabandhu (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Well, in the absence of any reference to applicable policies and guidelines, I'm going to give your opinion the weight it deserves, which is exactly none. I suggest you review BLP policy and familiarize yourself with such discussions as User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_86#BLP_gossip and heed both Jimbo's statement rejecting the "thinking that we should chronicle every single twist and turn of celebrity romances" as well as such comments as "Single people usually date, and famous people usually date famous people, that's not something we should devote space to" [45] as well as the discussion there. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I find it amusing that you reference policy and then link to a talk page. What do you read in WP:BLP that would justifying this removal? It is not gossip or rumour; it has been well established and widely reported. Bangabandhu (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Policy is what we do, and it reflects consensus. Your attempt to laugh off consensus as "amusing" underlines the groundlessness of your stance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
For whatever reason, you've missed my point. Again: What in WP:BLP justifies removal of something that is relevant, reliable, not rumour, and justified by multiple reliable sources? Bangabandhu (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Read the discussions I've cited. Not every WP:CONSENSUS is incorporated into the policy document, they can't be. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

A report of ethnocentric edits[edit]

Dear User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz Some users are trying to change the authentic and well-documented paper Feyli Lurs without any citations and scientific sources. Please have a look and help us to keep it safe. Regards--Shadegan (talk) 06:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Edits to Tahir ul Qadri page[edit]

I have added information which has been cited through 3rd party neutral soures, the page has very low level bias. If any information is incorrect or uncited, kindly edit that portion alone as wikipedia allows this to be done. Consider this a formal warning, as your reverts seem like deliberate attempsts to vandlise the page. Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanialAhmedSheikh (talkcontribs) 16:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Call Me Joe.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Call Me Joe.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Your edits to the LGBT reality page[edit]

You removed the entire Love and Hip Hop casts from the page for "nn"? as in non-notable? What makes you decide that? Most of the page is poorly referenced so it seems odd that you decided to focus on those cast members in particular (all of whom are people of color which makes me question your motives). I will find the sources and add them but to use "nn" as an excuse to erase so much information is absolutely ridiculous and ignorant. In particular the gay storyline in season 2 of LHH Hollywood was very heavily publicized and were a major part of the season. Pinchofhope (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP strictly prohibits unsourced/unreferenced claims about living people's sexuality. Period. As for your gratuitous accusation of racism, it's plain as day that I was reviewing the article starting at the top, in one-year blocs. To convert that into an accusation of racism makes me question your good faith, intellectual honesty and competence. Go away. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Your signature[edit]

Hello. Your signature did not show up here [46]. Just thought you might want to know. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Requests for closure - Warning.[edit]

Please allow this to serve as a warning - do not edit other users' comments on pages like Requests for Closure. If you feel the other person is violating policy, put a warning on their talk page and ask them to change their comment, and if they do not do so, report them to a noticeboard. Furthermore, remember to Assume Good Faith - I read both the AfD discussion and Erpit's original closure request comment. As a completely uninvolved editor, I saw no evidence of canvassing in his comment, and given the way the AfD has gone, it's entirely reasonable to request closure with no consensus. I am going to re-revert your edit, and if you choose to edit Erpit's comment again, I will immediately file a report with WP:ANI that you are failing to assume good faith and also violating guidelines against changing other editors' comments. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Competence is required when editing Wikipedia, even on user talk pages. Citing a guideline regarding article talk pages as though it applies to noticeboard posts betrays either extraordinary careless or a lack of competence. Removing disruptive text from noticeboard posts is allowed, and it's common practice to simply close and hat such discussions. Requests for closure are not used to lobby for an involved editor's preferred outcome in contested discussions; it is evident from reviewing even just the currently open requests that this is simply not done. WP:Noticeboards, which actually governs the page involved, does not include anything like the language you mistakenly cite. Even if that page were applicable, it allows the removal of "prohibited material", which covers use of impermissible lobbying and a page where well-established practice requires neutral requests. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The guideline I cited DOES NOT only apply to article talk pages. Re-read the Talk Page Guidlines, specifically the introduction, which states: "When talk pages in other namespaces and userspaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually apply." and "All guidelines here also apply to Wikipedia discussion pages, such as articles for deletion." Furthermore, canvassing is not one of the behaviors which are allowed to be removed, only things like personal attacks, outing, copyright violations (ie comments with legal implications) can be removed, and finally, your accusation of canvassing is not supported by Erpert's behavior, so your editing is not justified. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
You are dead wrong, and seizing on a minor phrasing error doesn't vitiate your error. You're also ignoring such exceptions to the guideline you cite as "Removing prohibited material" and "Removing harmful posts". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Administrator's Noticeboard Discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Chloë Grace Moretz[edit]

Hi, I need your help, it is about the article Chloe Grace Moretz, I can't find the actual citation source her relationship with Brooklyn Beckham has officially ended. I had the actual citation source from the newspaper website called the "Toronto Sun" and there is an article that Chloe and Brooklyn have officially split and someone has kept on removing the citation from an actual mainstream newspaper website. We know that sources from a gossip website is not allowed that is a shadowy source and unknown claims or rumors. So, could you go to Google and type in the search "Chloe Moretz Brooklyn Beckham split" and find the citation source from an actual mainstream newspaper website, but no sources from a gossip website, if you found the mainstream newspaper source. Go to the Chloe Grace Moretz article and added it for a citation source from an actual newspaper website or maybe the Toronto Sun website and no gossip website sources and while you're in Google with the search if you see the that is all gossip websites sources about Chloe and Brooklyn's split or maybe Chloe or Brooklyn's Facebook pages on their annoucement of their separation. Go to the Chloe Grace Moretz article and remove the portion from outdated gossip from it's "personal life". It's the only way to it's current source up to date on Chloe Grace Moretz article. Do your best. Thanks for your help. 2001:569:70DD:7500:1DD1:2603:8DF4:9E32 (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Jeremy Thorpe Photo[edit]

Thank you for correcting my error in adding the photo of Jeremy Thorpe to the United Kingdom general election, February 1974. Since the photo you reverted is the same one used in his Wikipedia article, I wanted to make it is acceptable for use in Wikipedia altogether, because if not, it might to need be nominated for deletion.--TommyBoy (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Because Thorpe is no longer living, and no free images are apparently available, it's acceptable to use a nonfree image in the infobox of his biography (or at the top, if there were no infobox). However, outside of the bio, there are very few circumstances where such an image can be used. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying that. Although I rarely add photos to Wikipedia articles, I will keep this experience in mind for future reference.--TommyBoy (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Confusing edit[edit]

See here Why would one of his girlfriends be notable but another not? —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be that the current relationship should be included, but past "relationships" aren't included absent some showing of a significant impact on the subject's life or career. Left to my own devices, I'd expunge a lot more of the "currently dating" stuff, as most of it proves insignificant. The phrase itself is next to meaningless, as it's used here for everything from routine social relationships between college students to statements like "Ally Actress is currently dating Mark Musician, the father of her three children". It doesn't communicate encyclopedic information. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Agreed It's all equally irrelevant, though. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Request: Update of the Template:Baku Metro color[edit]

Greetings.

Could you update the Template:Baku Metro color which was created far back in 2012, by adding the purple color in this template alongside the red and green colors, because Baku Metro has opened a third metro line in April 2016, whose official color is purple.

I tried to link Template:S-line in the Avtovağzal (Baku Metro) and Memar Əcəmi-2 (Baku Metro) articles of the new Line 3 and in the Memar Əcəmi (Baku Metro) article of Line 2, but failed as they appear green.

I ignorantly thought I could just add a color bar in the template, but I messed it up and reverted my mess up in the template, because I discovered that I know nothing about modules and other such technical aspects. Can you fix this please, if you know how to do this?

Thank you.

Artoxx (talk) 12:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Can you help with your experience??[edit]

Can you take a look here and maybe help solve the "problem" with your experience? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Thomas_Woods Thnx in advance! --GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Charles Laughton[edit]

Hi. Please stop reverting this article; there is an active discussion on the talkpage regarding the part you are removing. Please participate there rather than just removing stuff you don't like. Bjelleklang - talk 09:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Please pay attention rather than making knee-jerk comments on my, or any other editor's, talk page. Multiple editors have objected to the inclusion of the content at issue, which is on its face sensationalist garbage. A single user wishes to restore it. That editor, User:Holanthony, has a long history of problematic edits to biographies. See, for example, this ANI discussion [47], where Holanthony made similarly spurious complaints about reversion of their improper edits, only to have the complaint WP:BOOMERRANG and the discussion closed with a warning "that further edits posing BLP problems are likely to lead to sanctions". Sourcing biographies with tabloid garbage is unacceptable, whether the article subject is living or dead. Supporting an editor who plainly "clearly lack[s] a basic understanding of a number of polices (not limited to just BLP). Including accusations of child molesting against non-notable people in a BLP? When no charges were even brought?" (to quote just one comment in that ANI) is particularly unacceptable for an administrator. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

1. There were no "warnings" issued as a result of the ANI post. Please get you facts straight and stop lying. Holanthony (talk) 14:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The admin who closed the discussion said, in their closing statement, "Holanthony is warned that further edits posing BLP problems are likely to lead to sanctions. The warning was placed on Holanthony's talk page here [48]. So, Holanthony, given the lack of integrity demonstrated by your statement above, you are unwelcome here. I have expunged the remainder of your post, since you have shown your statements are unworthy of belief. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)